[ILUG] SuSE redistribution

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Rory Browne (rory.browne at gmail.com):

> When I redistribute the dvd, It's the compilation that I'm
> redistributing.

Sure.  (But, if you think that a grant based on the distro vendor's
"compilation copyright" suffices to cover the entire contents, you're
deluded.)

> Novell have a licence to include such software on their compilation.

Presumably.

> Novell give their customers the right redistribute their compilation.

Unsupported assertion.  Please cite.

The relevant copyright holders would have to grant permission for
further redistribution, and there's no been showing that they ever have.
In fact, evidence from 9.1 Professional Edition showed the exact
opposite.

Which brings me back to what I was saying:  If the copyright holders
have said something granting that permission, please cite.

And, of course, that's a request I make for rhetorical purposes, because
you've made amply clear that you have nothing to cite but rather are
just pounding the table and making excuses for ignoring copyright
concerns.


> Your arguments about the four packages are subjective. 

No, I've referenced settled points of law, demonstrable fact about the
earlier release, and Novell-published package lists.

> You ask what gives you the right to redistribute those four packages.

Correct.

> I say it is not those four packages in particular that you are 
> redistributing, but rather an entire compilation for which you 
> have permission from the copyright holder to redistribute.

Sorry, but we've already covered this:  Novell is NOT the copyright
holder of those four packages (nor, actually, of almost all other
constituent codebases).  Therefore, rights that ordinarily are reserved
by automatic operation of copyright law to the owners would have to be
granted by licence, if at all.

Thus my question:  Where's the licence?

> The fact that there are a few stray packages from others in there
> which you _do_not_install_or_use_ unless you form an agreement with
> the copyright holder to do so, is for the want of a better word,
> irrelevent.

Sorry, but we've already covered this:  Once again, copyright violation
exists upon your performing acts not specifically permitted by the
relevent copyright owners (and not otherwise granted by law), completely
without regard to whether you "form an agreement" or not.

> Don't start an argument about what SCO's case against IBM was about.

As the French would presumably never say:  "Quelle chutzpah!"  _You_
were the one doing that.

> SCO used every excuse they could think of to try to extort IBM and the
> linux community.

In their antics for the press, yes, but _not_ in their cause of action
for the IBM court case.  Thus my point.