Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
SuSE Businesses Operating Systems Software Linux

OpenSUSE 11.1 License Changes Examined 90

nerdyH writes "Novell's recent openSUSE 11.1 release includes a new end-user license agreement modeled after Fedora's EULA, says Community Manager Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier in this detailed interview. Zonker says distributions should apply the 'open source principle' and standardize trademark agreements and EULA, similar to how the OSI sought to reduce open source license proliferation a few years back. But with Fedora and openSUSE being so different, can one size really fit all? And, will open source licenses ever finally get translated into languages besides English? (Zonker says that translation into 7 languages was done for openSUSE 11.1.)"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

OpenSUSE 11.1 License Changes Examined

Comments Filter:
  • by Syrente ( 990349 ) on Wednesday December 24, 2008 @09:35AM (#26222423)

    And, will open source licenses ever finally get translated into languages besides English?"

    (Zonker says that translation into 7 languages was done for openSUSE 11.1.)

    Well, unless those seven languages are English, English, English, English, English, English and English, then I'd think it's safe to assume so.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 24, 2008 @09:57AM (#26222575)
    Actually, it's not an 'ersatz' standard, it's required that all communicants be able to work in either the local airport language or English. 'Local language' makes life difficult in India (too many) so they use English. And any pilot can force a french atc to speak english... Pisses 'em off royally.
  • by RotateLeftByte ( 797477 ) on Wednesday December 24, 2008 @10:12AM (#26222693)

    It may piss off the French ATC to have to speak english to an Air France Pilot but at least all the other planes in the air can understand the instructions being given. A standard language is essential in this case for Passenger safety.

  • by houghi ( 78078 ) on Wednesday December 24, 2008 @10:17AM (#26222739)

    Luckily you gave the answer yourself. No. Read the licenses and it will become clear.
    Novell put YaST under GPL. It openend up the development of the distro. It made available their Build Service. It gave tools to remove trademarks and the ability to make your own distribution. (somethink like CentOS is pretty easy to do with openSUSE)

    It stopped the time difference of availablity of boxed set and downloadable version. It gives a lot of time and people to coding directly.

    Yet when Novell does something, it must be evil.

    I am still waiting on the collaps of Linux after the Novell/Microsoft deal. All that I see is that Novell giot a load of money from Microsoft and Novell keeps going on fighting for OSS all the way to court.

    The sole reason the license has been changed is because thay want to put their money where their mouth is. I know they are interested in even better ways to do this, so if you have an idea, do not hesitate to tell them. If youi have a good case with a good explanation, they will listen. (That does not mean they will do what you sugest)

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 24, 2008 @10:30AM (#26222847)

    EULA means End-user License Agreement.
    Why the fuck should I as a end-user have to agree to an EULA?
    Free software is copyrighted, and copyright is for distribution not for use.
    EULA covers use.
    Why the fuck should I have to agree to something just to use it? It should hamper my freedoms?

    Man fuck that. OpenSUSE? So much for open.
    EULA is something you expect from proprietary software, not from free open source software.

    Fuck that shit.

  • by Nazlfrag ( 1035012 ) on Wednesday December 24, 2008 @11:11AM (#26223233) Journal

    Indeed, it's the lingua franca of our times. The licenses don't need translation, it's in leagalese anyway so it's probably half latin. They can be universally understood or at least interpreted by courts and lawyers, hell plain english needs interpretation in a courts jurisdiction. It's the man files they should be worried about.

  • by FlyingGuy ( 989135 ) <flyingguy AT gmail DOT com> on Wednesday December 24, 2008 @12:28PM (#26223799)

    You sir are completely and utterly wrong. The government was right, and your bunch of little "It eez our right to speek zee language we love" assholes were wrong as well.

    Yes sir, I am a pilot, I communicate with ATC a lot. I have caught ATC mistakes because I can understand the instructions given to other pilots. As only one of many other examples: I am on final, outer marker, 130 kts, dirty. When I hear the Tower say, "N-xxxxx position and hold, runway 28R". Hold the phone, that is the runway I am landing on! Now if that is not bad enough the next thing I hear, "N-xxxxx cleared for takeoff". To say the least I start screaming at ATC ( in english ) and we sort it out.

    Now if the tower controller had been speaking French to a French speaking pilot I doubt I would be sitting here writing this. The reason people who direct machines that are carrying human beings in the air speak a common language is so we don't get killed. But I guess you folks in Quebec don't give a shit about that, now do you.

    Now in the context of EULA's I think they should be translated into all possible languages. Why? Because it is not a safety issue!

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 24, 2008 @12:34PM (#26223827)

    Yeah, MS gave them money. Why did they do that? Is MS benevolent? Do you honestly think MS wants Linux to succeed at heart, when they have a competing operating system? If you were a MS investor, would *you* be happy to have them giving money to the competition?

  • by Syrente ( 990349 ) on Wednesday December 24, 2008 @01:01PM (#26224045)
    Indeed, it's a sad state of affairs when we cater to one third of the world's population...
  • by dubbreak ( 623656 ) on Wednesday December 24, 2008 @01:26PM (#26224251)
    So if the standard language was, say, esperanto and all ATC and pilots had to speak it would the francophones have still been up in arms? I doubt it.

    In my experience french speaking french Canadians have a knee jerk reaction to any situation where they would be expected to speak english. The attitude is that it is their god given right to speak their native tongue.

    While I do agree that Canada should have two native tongues and government services should be offered in both languages often the attitude goes too far. We are talking about something that has become a standard in the aviation industry due to the proliferation of english, not the Canadian government trying to put one over on the french canadians.

    ATC communication having to be in english is not like forcing french canadian to go to english speaking schools, forcing them to speak english in court, or forcing them file their taxes in english.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 24, 2008 @02:17PM (#26224697)

    but as an english-only speaker you should understand that flying by in foreign airspace there is always an added risk to due miscommunication... When english is the second language of an air controller or a pilot there is always an added risk

    The job of a pilot is to fly the aircraft, often into non-english speaking places. What's easier? To hire enough pilots that speak the language of every country they are expected to fly into and to work around the scheduling so that pilots are limited to international routes where they speak the languages of the countries they are leaving from or the countries they are going to, or to require PERFECT GODDAMN FLUENCY of english (or another language, just pick one) by every pilot and every ATC?

    An english-speaking pilot flying to france being forced to understand french with less-than-perfect fluency is just as dangerous as the situations you described.

    both the pilots and air controller have full command of the same language which is not english ?

    If they don't have full command of english, they shouldn't have been hired for that job.

    Thank you for your so great consideration of the Quebec people. I really wish you do not enter our airspace...

    I would be more than glad to stay way if you agree to keep all your french-speaking pilots away from the rest of the world.

  • by patiodragon ( 920102 ) on Wednesday December 24, 2008 @04:10PM (#26225685) Homepage

    "However why take this risk when both the pilots and air controller have full command of the same language which is not english ? This would be true here particularly in the case of a regional flight. Why take an additional risk ?"

    So that the pilots from India, Russia, Czech Republic, Morocco, Spain, Portugal, etc. know what the hell is going on at the airport. Wasn't that clear enough from the example given?

The last thing one knows in constructing a work is what to put first. -- Blaise Pascal