[ILUG] SuSE redistribution

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Gareth Eason (bigbro at skynet.ie):

> In practice, all the packages mentioned are freely downloadable from
> the internet (AFAICS) so protecting against a few more copies is
> surely not going to make a difference, is it?

One of the four included packages (in Professional Edition) that I cited
is Matrica GmbH's MoneyPlex, no edition of which is publicly
downloadable.

However, consider also the other three:  Imagine sending a note to the
legal departments of Adobe Software, Inc., Opera Software ASA, and Real
Networks Corporation, informing them that you've reposted downloadable
copies of their packages from your own Web site, and are just checking
to make sure they don't mind, even though you technically have no legal
right to redistribute, not being an authorised download site.

Now, you _might_ get a cheery "Hullo and thanks" from the lawyers, but a
rather fear you would not.  My point is that proprietary software
companies sometimes care a _great_ deal about controlling the right of
redistribution and withholding it from the public, even if the software
in question _may_ be freely downloaded from authorised Internet
distribution sites.  Why?  In some cases, it might be because they want
to be able to make sources of old versions vanish when new ones come
out.  In other cases, just control-freak attitudes, or who knows what
else?

> Perhaps this might be an opportunity for the companies to clarify 
> THEIR desires for their software....

Well, isn't that what the four (and any other similar) packages'
licences constitute?  You may recall I was suggesting that Niall (or
anyone else with a copy of SUSE Linux 9.3 Professional) simply read
those, and see if they've changed since 9.1.[1]

As to Novell / SUSE Linux AG supposedly having secured from those
companies permission to redistribute in contradiction of those licences,
I'll readily believe that when someone can show me statements from the
copyright holders to that effect.  Otherwise, logically one would look
to what the copyright holders _did_ say, i.e., the package licence
terms.

[1] Again, I posted the explicit language of the four licences, which in
each case not only didn't convey the right of redistribution, but went
out of their way to clarify that it was absolutely _not_ conveyed:
http://linuxmafia.com/pipermail/conspire/2004-September/000513.html
http://linuxmafia.com/pipermail/conspire/2004-September/000514.html
http://linuxmafia.com/pipermail/conspire/2004-September/000517.html

-- 
Cheers,                                      Hardware:  The part you kick.
Rick Moen                                    Software:  The part you boot.
rick at linuxmafia.com