On Saturday 2004-01-17 18:44, Chris Gehlker wrote:
> On Jan 17, 2004, at 3:29 PM, Derek Neighbors wrote:
> > No one has called SuSE the devil.
>
> Certainly *you* haven't. I think some others have come pretty close.
>
> >> Sure it's important. It's just not, in my opinion, important enough to
> >> justify using emotionally loaded words like 'Freedom' to characterize
> >
> > I thing you are too emotionally hung up on the word based on prior
> > grievances.
>
> This is possible. I certainly do believe that the FSF, in advocating
> for goals that I share, has resorted to methods that I find deceptive.
> I don't think they started out intending to be deceptive but I think
> that the egos of some folks at FSF won't let them see that there is a
> loophole in the GPL. I have corresponded with people who tell me that
> the whole impetus behind the RPL came when RMS himself went into
> complete denial about the very possibility that there could be a
> loophole in the GPL. I think that in many ways RMS is an admirable
> person but he is just too invested in a particular piece of text, the
> GPL, to consider how it could be improved.
>
> >> one side. By granting users a right to redistribute the GPL guarantees
> >> that *in practice* nobody is going to make a pile of money reselling
> >
> > It doesn't guarantee it, but certainly it makes it difficult.
> >
> >> FOSS. SUSE just goes the extra step of denying de jure what the GPL
> >> denies de facto. And while Red Hat may forgo the use of copyright law
> >
> > If it is so guaranteed, then why do they feel it necessary to put it in
> > writing?
>
> This is a question that I have asked myself and the only answer that I
> can come up with is that they are simply being pig headed. Red Hat put
> anaconda under the GPL and it hasn't hurt them any. I don't see how any
> commercial advantage that accrues to SUSE could possibly outweigh the
> bad publicity.

First, I think you need to realize hackers and Linux nerds are a very 
different population from most biz-folk.  The MBA set are educated NOT to 
care about their license terms.  They care about TCO, being owned by 
proprietary software (eg. all our infrastructure runs on Oracle, we cant 
change.  The cost would ruin the company.), and clauses in an EULA that might 
keep them from doing business (some MS clauses that rip holes in security 
come close).

If a CIO the YAST license wouldn't bother me one little bit -- remember almost 
everyone *uses* software.  A good CIO buys software and tries hard not to 
write software.  As a CIO you do not want to waste time reading GPL code -- 
you *don't care* if you cand read the source code, if you have employees 
reading source code then you've already done something incompetent.

>From the Novel/SuSE POV there are good reasons they have the YAST License.  

1)  There is comercial exclusion.  It is illegal to make 1000 copies of SuSE 
and sell them.  Disgruntled employees cant take SuSE call it not-SuSE and 
sell it cheap to all your customers.  Under GPL they could, and you would 
subsidize your competition.  Subsidizing competition is generally 
contra-indicated.

2) Even if I hack SYL licensed stuff, the result is SYL in perpetuity.

3) There is recaputure.  If you modify SYL code, you cannot sell the code, but 
SuSE can.  In essence by basing your work on YAST you give SuSE a not 
exlusive, no restriction rights to any intellectual content you created so 
long as it is based on or includes any SYL content.

As always, you could call Novel/SuSE and negotiate (read pay) for custom 
license terms.

In effect, SYL is hostile to commercial software developers but NOT to persons 
who don't care about personal gain or organizations who will use, but not 
modify, the software.