OpenSUSE's EULAs vs. Free Software Ideals 59
Anonymous Coward Maximus writes with some interesting (and disheartening) bits found in recent EULAs from SUSE: "Apparently the Beta came/comes with an interesting EULA discussed in this Planète Béranger article that just makes me think where is this whole Novell/Microsoft ridiculousness going to end? One quote from the EULA to whet your appetite: 'The Software may contain an automatic disabling mechanism that prevents its use after a certain period of time, so You should back up Your system and take other measures to prevent any loss of files or data.' Hmmm... Here is the full Beta 3 EULA for you to dissect. Note that the final release has a different EULA that doesn't look that scary, but still mentions things like 'You acquire only a license to use the Software' and such." Personally, I find the "Benchmark Testing" section (under GENERAL TERMS in the final release's EULA) to be pretty irksome.
At least... (Score:4, Informative)
... we have been warned.
I know I will never recommend S.u.S.E. again.
BTW I think it's to whet one's appetite.
Re: (Score:1)
"dhry your appetite"? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You are totally unfair: Red hat does the same! (Score:4, Insightful)
I know I will never recommend S.u.S.E. again.
Let us please return to a FACT BASED discussion here.
The time-bombing mechanism clause is in the EULA in order to warn users that the commercial distro can be used on a trial-basis, which will disable itself after some time. That is no different than the way a billion other shareware software products have been distributed for the last 3 decades. Ok, so Novell were stupid enough to actually write that in their license. Red Hat has an identical term in their Red Hat Enterprise for Mainframe / System Z distro. See for yourself. [redhat.com] It has a 180 day limitation.
Is Red Hat now evil as well? Or could we PLEASE agree on the fact that this is a totally typical and normal way of letting users try c a commercial software distribution for a limited period of time?
I am not a Novell stockholder, so frankly I couldn't care less about their company value or the market share they own. But i WOULD like to see actual FACTS finding a place in this debate. Not small snippets of text taken out of context and abused for spreading a message which is very different from reality.
Taking small paragraphs and using them totally out of context is about the oldest FUD strategy in existence. And it is normally something we only see large corporations and monopolistic companies practice. It is very sad indeed to see that a community normally in opposition of FUD is turning to such methods.
Novell may be evil. Fine. But if you want to call them bad names, could we at least get some actual facts, which live up to the same standards you would normally require in other issues - for example similar to the decent standard we see in the more scientific articles?
Fact and actual information is king. FUD is FUD, no matter who wrote it and for what purpose.
Personally I am beginning to get the impression that all discussions on Novell/SuSE end up similar to this little scene. [youtube.com] What more can I say? Buuuuuuuuurnnn! The logic in the discussion seems to be on the same level anyway...
- Jesper
Re: (Score:2)
OK, thank you.
I stand corrected.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, thank you.
I stand corrected.
Also, at first I dim-wittedly replied to myself, instead of you.
So you can see how I managed the first lapse of judgement. I hope.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt anyone will read this, but because it hasn't been said yet:
The time-bombing mechanism clause is in the EULA in order to warn users that the commercial distro can be used on a trial-basis, which will disable itself after some time.
It is actually even more innocuous then that. The time-bomb clause only applies to the beta release. This isn't something that they put in and then took out of the final release after second thought. It was intentionally in the beta release and only the beta release because they didn't want people to continue using the beta after the final version had been released. This is an extremely common clause to have in commercial pre-release softwa
Re: (Score:2)
Why, what changed? Are you basing this entirely on a slashdot article? Because I remember reading Suse's EULA in 2005 before any of this Microsoft nonsense and it still looked ridiculous for a project based on open source work. I didn't rtfa, but if that benchmark line refers to the prohibition against publishing benchmarks of the distro, along with a grant of automatic permission to reciprocate against any company that violates this clause, then this is very old
the openSUSE community (Score:5, Insightful)
I think there's some people with hearts in the right place even inside Novell (I'm not just talking about the Czech and German teams) but as an aggregate they don't show much sign on "getting it" where the community model is concerned.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I used to be a big SUSE fan; I started using it back in 1999 IIRC. I even got a free box copy of 10.0 sent to me because I helped in some bug-fixing. But then the MS patent deal happened, and my next OS upgrade was not to another version of SUSE, but to Kubuntu instead. I've been using Kubuntu ever since (just upgraded to 8.04 this weekend), and am very happy with it. The package management is so far ahead of the RPM mess that SUSE still uses, I'm an
Re: (Score:2)
SuSE was my first Linux install, way, way back. Since there agreement with Microsoft I haven't touched it and have, in fact, been responsible for dropping its use in our department. I don't trust Novell.
Re: (Score:2)
I got burned by not upgrading a hosted server from FC2 to FC4 then FC6 than FC8 and can no longer get security updates - I finally got p0wned by something fixed in FC8
And when my hosted servers run for YEARS without much mai
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I don't mind the Linux "upgrade treadmill", but then again, I'm not running headless servers, only a desktop, so I like having the latest and greatest (as long as it's not too unstable). The nice thing about the Linux upgrade treadmill, as opposed to certain companies' upgrade treadmills, is that it doesn't cost you anything except time to upgrade your Linux system. Forced upgrading really sucks when you have to pay for the upgrade.
While I do understand the reluctance to change something that
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
*shakes fist at Lenovo*
I lived through some of the years growing pains of Linux on the desktop and am not willing to go through it again with a laptop. A bunch of people have posted how-tos recording how they "succussfully" installed Linux (notably Ubuntu) on their T61s, but when you read the details, you find out that none of them really got it working right. They're just enthusiasts who are w
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We'll see how it holds up vs. GPL (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
SUSE would most likely have to sue. You don't need to sue for the right to use the software. If you have the right to and the ability to, you just use it. Adding extra unenforcible terms would be equivalent to me saying "you may not respond to this post". Would that stop you? If I genuinely thought I had the right to demand such a condition I could sue you if you did but it would be laughed out of court
Re:We'll see how it holds up vs. GPL (Score:4, Funny)
Are you implying that my EULA is unenforceable?
I'm shocked. Positively shocked.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:We'll see how it holds up vs. GPL (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
No, you don't.
...
I should really stop saying that.
Re: (Score:2)
This is acknowledged in the full EULA (Score:4, Informative)
- novell acknowledges that this is as collection of software, most of which come with various OSS license
- the EULA re-states copyleft software themselves may be freely copied
- novell on claims the work of putting them together
The beta EULA, given the context, may also be a poorly written "Warning : unstable and may crash randomly". The context of this sentence doesn't sound as "We have put a DRM and the distribution will self-destruct on purpose".
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Can they even do this? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Then again, the EULA is for the distribution as a whole.
This shows why it is important to avoid deals such as the Microsoft-Novell one.
Will the market punish this behaviour, or will it stick?
Find out next week, same bat-time, same bat-channel...
FTFL (Score:4, Informative)
I'm not sure if these restrictions would apply to BSD software. For sure Novell is not required by the BSD license to release the software under a BSD license, but they do - a copy of the license is included with all the BSD software. I'm pretty sure the BSD license would override the terms of distribution spelled out in the EULA, but I don't know about the benchmarking section.
It gets especially confusing to me if you were say benchmarking the LAMP stack on SUSE 11 vs other distributions, since that starts to fall under the software as a collection rather than as individual packages.
Re: (Score:2)
They explicitly don't do that, but the submitter ignored that for the sake of creating drama.
As others have said, the EULA basically says Novell claim copyright over the package of all these apps. You can go ahead and distribute the whole package, or modified versions of any OSS software included. If you modify anything, you need to remove Novell's branding. Just like CentOS has to remove all the RH branding from their distro.
As for the benchmarking clause. It applies only to software companies and their ag
Earth to Novell... (Score:3, Insightful)
You know, the world's not exactly beating a path to Linux distros. It might not be the best idea to piss off a huge percentage of your intended audience, especially given that it's much more freedom-loving than most.
Re: (Score:2)
You know, the world's not exactly beating a path to Linux distros. It might not be the best idea to piss off a huge percentage of your intended audience, especially given that it's much more freedom-loving than most.
Some of these guys are anti-GPL as well. e.g.:
Here are the
Creeping Evil (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The EULAs are for different products. (Score:5, Informative)
The actual follow-on one is from the non-oss version of openSUSE ( http://ftp.nluug.nl/os/Linux/distr/opensuse/distribution/11.0/repo/non-oss/EULA.txt [nluug.nl] )
The one referenced is for the oss version for openSUSE ( http://ftp.nluug.nl/os/Linux/distr/opensuse/distribution/11.0/repo/oss/EULA.txt [nluug.nl] )
I will leave it as an exercise for the read to determine if it is actually an evil conspiracy or not.
Nonsense, or just laziness... (Score:3, Informative)
It just looks like they are using the same parts of the EULA for all of their products, search/replace name of the product. Just look at the part of LIMITED WARRANTY. It makes no sense to an OpenSUSE user!
I love OpenSUSE as a distribution, I am a constant user and I cheer for them , but I don't see myself as being the "You" they refer on the EULA. Actually, I don't see any OpenSUSE user being it.
About the "Benchmark Testing", now I see why we never see OpenSUSE under benchmark testings on , say, Phoronix [phoronix.com] for example.
Yall are rabid! (Score:5, Informative)
As for the benchmarking. That is a GOOD THING. It implies that if MS benchmarks Novell/SuSE and published the results, Novell then has the right to Benchmark MS's OS in spite of what the Way more draconion EULA states.
They don't stop you from distributing the code, nor benchmarking. They just ask that you respect their branding and if you can benchmark theirs, they can benchmark yours.
I don't like it, but... (Score:2, Insightful)
On the other hand, if I was using Windows...
Boycott Novell (Score:4, Informative)
If Novell was serious about helping Linux and FOSS, they should have rejected getting on the patent train. Not only does it help legitimize software patents which shouldn't exist, but it's also a slap in the face to anyone not running their distro as you are only "protected" from Microsoft's patent racket if you use SLED/SLES and possibly Suse.
I'm for businesses which stand up against the concept of software patents and stand up against big companies which try to trample on something good. The GPL can only do so much against software patents, so it's up to us to voice our discontent with them, and it's up to companies to do the same.
Not to mention, I dislike how ridiculous all the things are which are granted software patents. Ooh, you changed your menu layout slightly? Congratu-fucking-lations, here's your patent.
Pure slashfud (Score:5, Informative)
Benchmark Testing.
This benchmark testing restriction applies to You if You
are a software vendor or if You are performing testing on the Software at
the direction of or on behalf of a software vendor. You may not, without
Novell's prior written consent not to be unreasonably withheld, publish or
disclose to any third party the results of any benchmark test of the
Software. If You are a vendor of products that are functionally similar to
or compete with the Software ("Similar Products"), or are acting on behalf
of such a vendor, and You publish or disclose benchmark information on the
Software in violation of this restriction, then notwithstanding anything to
the contrary in the Similar Product's end user license agreement, and in
addition to any other remedies Novell may have, Novell shall have the right
to perform enchmark testing on Similar Products and to disclose and publish
that benchmark information and You hereby represent that You have authority
to grant such right to Novell.
Anyone who can actually be bothered to read this sees that all Novell is doing is ensuring that they have the right to make their own benchmarks if some software vendor decides to benchmark Novells products against their own. This isn't diabolical at all.
Also, as for the 'You acquire only a license to use the Software' quote, let's look at that in context:
OWNERSHIP RIGHTS
No title to or ownership of the Software is transferred to You. Novell and/or its licensors owns and retains all title and ownership of all
intellectual property rights in the Software, including any adaptations or
copies. You acquire only a license to use the Software.
If you read that statement in context, instead of quoting it out of context for dramatic effect, you see that it makes perfect sense. Novell is saying that you don't own openSUSE or any of the other branded software they're giving you. They are using legal language to protect their ownership of their brand. This is not unusual and is just common sense. I can already hear some of you saying that this language must mean that Novell is violating the GPL and by not allowing redistribution. Anyone thinking of engaging in such a rant needs to read this before they make a fool of themselves:
The Software is a modular operating system comprised of numerous components that may be accompanied by separate license terms. The Software is a collective work of Novell; although Novell does not own the copyright to every component of the Software, Novell owns the collective work copyright for the Software. Most of the components are open source packages, and most of the components are neither developed nor owned by Novell. Your license rights with respect to individual components accompanied by separate license terms are defined by those terms; nothing in this agreement shall restrict, limit, or otherwise affect any rights or obligations You may have, or conditions to which You may be subject, under such license terms; however, if You distribute copies of any component independent of the Software, You must remove all Novell trademarks, trade dress, and logos from each copy.
You may make and use unlimited copies of the Software within your
Organization. With respect to any version containing the letters "OSS" in
the product name, whereby the product name is
defined in first line of this Agreement, You
may make and distribute unlimited copies of the Software outside Your
organization. You may make and distribute unlimited modified copies outside
Your organization provided You remove all Novell trademarks, trade dress,
and logos from each modified copy of the Software. The term "Orga
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not quite. (Score:2)
You may not, without Novell's prior written consent not to be unreasonably withheld, publish or disclose to any third party the results of any benchmark test of the Software.
If you release the results of a benchmark, you are in breach of the terms of the EULA, as such your license to the use the software is revoked, and you must uninstall the software (or at least strip out all the non OSS parts, and Novel Trademarks, at which point you might as well just install a different distro):
Term. This Agreement becomes effective on the date You legally acquire the Software and will automatically terminate if You breach any of its terms. Upon termination of this Agreement, You must destroy the original and all copies of the Software or return them to Novell and delete the Software from Your systems.
I like the reciprocal benchmarking rights spelled out in the second half of that paragraph, but the first half is a legitimate problem.
Yes, quite (Score:1, Interesting)
If you release the results of a benchmark, you are in breach of the terms of the EULA, as such your license to the use the software is revoked, and you must uninstall the software (or at least strip out all the non OSS parts, and Novel Trademarks, at which point you might as well just install a different distro):
No you don't. Read the section of the EULA again where Novell specifies what it may do if you violate that part of the EULA:
If You are a vendor of products that are functionally similar to
or compete with the Software ("Similar Products"), or are acting on behalf
of such a vendor, and You publish or disclose benchmark information on the
Software in violation of this restriction, then notwithstanding anything to
the contrary in the Similar Product's end user license agreement, and in
addition to any other remedies Novell may have, Novell shall have the right
to perform benchmark testing on Similar Products and to disclose and publish that benchmark information and You hereby represent that You have authority to grant such right to Novell.
You're not required to uninstall anything. Novell simply states that if you do a benchmark on their products that they can do one on yours. That's it. Don't be confused by the legal text where they reserve all of their additional rights - "and in addition to any other remedies Novell may have" - that's not some kind of trap. That language just protects their rights and lets you know
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You still aren't reading/understanding that first half. In summary:
BY INSTALLING OR OTHERWISE USING THE SOFTWARE (INCLUDING ITS COMPONENTS), YOU AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT.
Term. This Agreement becomes effective on the date You legally acquire the Software and will automatically terminate if You breach any of its terms. Upon termination of this Agreement, You must destroy the original and all copies of the Software or return them to Novell and delete the Software from Your systems.
You may not, without Novell's prior written consent not to be unreasonably withheld, publish or disclose to any third party the results of any benchmark test of the Software.
So by using the software you agree to follow the terms of the license, in particular you agree that you do not have permission to distribute benchmark results. If you do so, then you are in breach of the agreement, and your license to use the software is revoked.
That second half of the paragraph does not remove or nullify the consequences of violating the terms of the license - it just adds an additional consequence. Namely, that you h
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Have you installed Firefox lately? (Score:4, Interesting)