[ILUG] SuSE redistribution

[Rory Browne]

> I hadn't imagined it necessary to point out the difference, but -- the
> question isn't whether Novell violate their business partners'
> copyrights by selling SUSE boxed sets (presumably persuant to
> contracts), but rather whether Novell customers violate some of those
> copyrights if they then redistribute the software.

You're missing the point. Under Irish law(and for that matter most
national laws), when you buy software for a particular purpose(in this
case redistributing without receiving consideration), and it turns out
that that redistributing, aforementioned software is illegal, then
that would be a violation of Irelands contract law. When you buy SuSE
Linux, you form a contract with Novell according to Novells EULA. If
you lost out(ie are forced to cease and desist, or whatever) due to
lies in that EULA, then you could sue Novell.

Basicly what I'm saying is that if you redistribute SuSE, and it turns
out that copyright law makes redistribution illegal, then the guilty
party is Novell. Why would  Novell leave themselves open to being
sued, particularly if as you claim, they had teething probems with
SuSE 9.1. Why would they repeat their mistakes with 9.3?

No offense Rick, but I'd rather trust Novells team of lawyers to look
after their own backs, than to take the word of someone from a mailing
list.

In short I'm right, you're wrong - because I say so.

> 
> One reason I care about the question:  Open source wasn't built by
> ripping off proprietary software companies.  I see no reason why we
> should start now.  Besides, it's just an interesting factual question.

SuSE isn't open-source AFAIK. You can't redistribute it for a fee. It
is a propriatory Operating System, that consists mostly of Open-Source
components.