SuSE Denies UnitedLinux Per-Seat License Model 193
m0RpHeus writes "According to Linux Today, SuSE is denying per seat licensing for United Linux. `We really don't plan any per-seat licensing for UnitedLinux,' said SuSE's US Director of Sales Holger Dyroff. UnitedLinux, it seems is divided on this issue."
Ransom Love's Brain Bites Again (Score:4, Interesting)
Ransom Love does not understand Open Source PR, and it would be better for everyone if he were not so press-hungry. SUSE has a much better spin on essentially the same facts, and understand the Open Source community is not just a place to leech code from in order to turn a buck. SUSE understands to give/take relationship, Calera, specifically Rasom Love doesn't get it.
Next time you read a quote from Ransom love, understand two things:
1. He doesn't speak for his partners (SUSE/Turbo Linux in this case), even though he will make is sound like he is.
2. He doesn't understand Open Source PR and will be needlessly sticking his foot in his mouth...that's just what he does.
-Pete
Differences between Linux distributions (Score:2, Interesting)
Red Hat bases everything on their strong image and the fact that they are #1. They base most their business on services while remaining very open-source-spirit oriented.
MandrakeSoft, which more and more appears to be now #2 in term of installed user base, is the biggest defender of Free Software after Debian. They sell boxes, and start to offer business-orieted services such as Red Hat does, but they also had a great idea: they offer extra services to their users (individuals & enterprises) with the Mandrake Club which provides them many subscriptions and a good income.
SuSE, Caldera, TurboLinux... Their deep wish would actually be sell their products "a la Microsoft" with one license per seat, without providing ISO images and so on. They actually have a very "proprietary" ideal, so they try to offer a not too bad image to the Linux community while acting against its ideals in reality.
In my opinion, Red Hat is lucky because they can stay open and make real business, MandrakeSoft is *extremely* innovative in inventing a real business model for Free Software while being a fervent defender of its rules. And SuSE, Caldera... didn't understand anything to Linux/Free Software and are going to be banned by the Linux community, and see their revenues decrease.
Re:Hmmm Get serious (Score:2, Interesting)
Have a lower layer defined and upper layer will get more uniform as it was. Every
Any company can extend LSB to its own potential, main thing is that basic layer defined by LSB stays the same.
Same as puting gnome in LSB, YES you can. Being LSB compatible means being LSB compatible.
Read LSB specs and then after that you'll see where you got it wrong. Also read pdf on UL site, you'll realize that they already inteded to make separated distributions. LSB does never defines per-seat licensing. Per-seat licensing is company choice. example Lindows
It should be useful for people to realise that united linux (all 4 companys) is just the first one to accept LSB standard. They don't define what LSB standard is. So instead of "United Linux compatible", "LSB v.X.x compatible" would be more preffered and acceptable.
What is the *aim* of UnitedLinux (Score:2, Interesting)
Can someone tell me what the *intended*aim* of UnitedLinux:
1. To provide a standard "base Linux" to compete with RedHat?
2. To provide a single Linux to be distributed by all members?
3. To provide a single group for all communication/development outside of sales?
4. To provide a single face for customers (i.e. only marketting)?
It sounds like others in this thread are similarly confused. Course, that may be because the members of "United Linux" are a little confused on the aim themselves.
I humbly await enlightenment.
Re:Damn... (Score:3, Interesting)
Hey, I made it first. :)
I could not resist (Score:3, Interesting)
United Linux is like the bottom 4 teams in a league combining forces to take on the champions. (Basically you have the best of the worst taking on the winners.)
The last thing businesses want to do is continually reinstall new distributions all of the time in order to get the new versions of applications -- imagine in the MS world having (or perceivably having) to upgrade from Win98 to Windows 2000 to use Office2000 or the new Windows Media player --- etc, etc. I think the big winner (functionally) will be the distribution that ends the need (or perceived need) to constantly have to install new distributions every 6 months -- just to get the upgraded applications. I would like to see the ability to easily go from say KDE 2 to KDE 3 from within a distribution without having to upgrade to a new point release distribution. I know that you can go to KDE's site and go through RPM hell to manually upgrade the RPMS's one at a time -- or you can add a "special" line in your sources.lst file in some cases to get new versions in the Debian world -- or you can use the source and compile yourself, but we are talking about my Mom and Grandma here...
The only time someone should have to go through a full reinstall of the whole ball of wax should be every few years. Not every 6 months. It should be easy to keep applications up to date or on the bleeding edge -- without compromising or reinstalling the base distribution.