[ILUG] SUSE Linux 9.3 Professional Edition licensing survey results

[Rick Moen]

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

> I feel that it doesn't apply for the purposes of this discussion. I
> believe that it refers to other restrictions, such as non-consent to
> include Acrobat Reader in a different product apart from SuSE Linux.
> I've pointed that out several times.

If you don't have Adobe's permission to redistribute Acrobat Reader,
then (obviously) you don't have permission to redistribute the SUSE
Linux 9.3 Professional Edition disk 2 that contains it -- irrespective
of whether you "consent" to any Adobe licence.

What part of that part being reserved to the copyright owner by default
did you fail to understand?

You tried to sleaze around it by maintaining that Novell had somehow
secured that permission and conveyed it in the much-cited Novell licence
statement -- but now it turns out that the license statement doesn't say
that at all.

Cornered on that score, you're now falling back on "Well, some Novell
representative (alternatively, member of their legal staff) told me I
could, so I'm covered".  Which brings us up to date on your attempts to
dodge the issue.

> I wouldn't like to sue anyone, and I would generally consider that
> option to be a last resort, but if after enquiring from Novell about
> the right to redistribute SL, and they tell me that it is legal, then
> it is reasonable for me(under aforementioned 1980 act), to consider
> the sw suitable for redistribution. If not then Novell are liable,
> under aforementioned 1980 act, as well as possibly the consumer
> information act 1978.

Translation:  "I'm ignoring the plain evidence of what's been posted and
the obviously restricted nature of some of 9.3 Pro's constituent
packages, because some Novell guy told me I could, so I plan to pass the
buck to them if someone tries to hold me responsible."