[ILUG] SUSE Linux 9.3 Professional Edition licensing survey results

[Rory Browne]

Okay Rick: I don't think you are in a very good position to be
accusing me of lack of due diligence. I had the necessary diligence to
procure a copy of Novells SuSE license agreement, before mounting an
argument based on it. I assumed that you'd have the diligence to do
the same. I had the due diligence to contact Novell regarding the
case, who assured me that the SW was redistributable. For the record I
also contacted Adobe, Real, and Opera, but have yet to recieve a
reply.

> I didn't have in my hands a CD set of SUSE Linux 9.3 Pro until now.
I didn't then, and still now don't have a copy of the relevent
DVD/CD's. It didn't stop me from reading their license agreement,
before commenting on it. I can't recall where exactly I obtained a
copy of the License agreement, but I think it was on Novells website.

> Oh, it just "didn't support your point of view".  That's rich!
Why, what should I have done. Posted the entire licence agreement to
the list? I'm sure you'd have been particularly interested in their
disclaimer of warrenty. There are loads of other thngs I could have
posted too, such as a copy of the GPL, CPL, the Plans to my house, as
well as my favourate drinking establishment, but the fact that they
didn't support my argument, was, and still is a valid reason for not
including them.

Don't even try to dis me for not doing your research.

> So, basically you lied by omission.  OK.
No not OK. I resent your false accusation on this case. Anything I
said in thsi discussion was to the best of my knowledge factually
accurate, and any insinuation otherwise is libel. Just because I
didn't include material I'd assumed you'd have read before making
argument based  on it, doesn't suggest or support an argument of
deception.

Niall:
I don't believe I've wasted anyones time. I made an argument, based on
my interpretion of Irish legislation, as well as US case law. I
believed then, and I still do, that SuSE distributions are legally
distributable, provided you don't obtain payment for them. I
furthermore believe that if it were proved otherwise, then the guilty
party would be Novell. I've quoted two laws to support that belief,
namely the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 1980, and the
Consumer Information Act 1978.

Some interesting points have been made, that contradicted this belief,
but none of which I believe are sufficient to invalidate it, or for
that matter substansially weaken it.