openSUSE 10.2 RC1 [LWN.net]

openSUSE 10.2 RC1

Posted Nov 24, 2006 23:34 UTC (Fri) by einstein (subscriber, #2052)
In reply to: openSUSE 10.2 RC1 by kornak
Parent article: openSUSE 10.2 RC1

Just as open as ever - all packages GPL'd, everything available for free download and unrestricted use. So much for the knee-jerk reactions.

to post comments

openSUSE 10.2 RC1

Posted Nov 25, 2006 6:34 UTC (Sat) by proski (guest, #104) [Link] (8 responses)

I've never used OpenSUSE and I haven't had a chance to examine the CD contents, but my understanding of "non-OSS" from the announcement is "under a license not approved by OSI", which would preclude GPL, an OSI approved license.

Besides, I'm not sure about unrestricted use, and that applies not just to the Binary AddOn CD. No software is safe against software patents. GPL cannot protect software against them, and neither can distributors and copyright holders.

Novell may have an agreement with Microsoft, but what would prevent other companies from laying patent claims? They may want their share too.

If you want to discourage others from posting knee-jerk reactions, perhaps you could use your own comments to set an example?

openSUSE 10.2 RC1

Posted Nov 25, 2006 6:54 UTC (Sat) by einstein (subscriber, #2052) [Link] (5 responses)

> I'm not sure about unrestricted use, and that applies not just to the Binary AddOn CD. No software is safe against software patents. GPL cannot protect software against them, and neither can distributors and copyright holders.

Nobody forces you to use the add-on CD - avoid that and you're 100% GPL

> Novell may have an agreement with Microsoft, but what would prevent other companies from laying patent claims? They may want their share too.

I'm not sure what any of that has to do with whether SuSE is free. It comes with the same programs as debian, redhat, gentoo etc - if SuSE is not "free" then neither are any of the other distros.

I realize that some feel SuSE is now somehow "tainted", due to ownership by Novell, which cozied up to the devil, but lets not throw all reason and sanity to the winds in a frantic effort to criticize all things Novell.

openSUSE 10.2 RC1

Posted Nov 25, 2006 23:34 UTC (Sat) by tajyrink (subscriber, #2750) [Link] (2 responses)

If only they'd provide a DVD without non-free packages.

openSUSE 10.2 RC1

Posted Nov 26, 2006 0:03 UTC (Sun) by einstein (subscriber, #2052) [Link] (1 responses)

> If only they'd provide a DVD without non-free packages.

You can easily make such a dvd from what suse provides. Download the 5 CD isos, then use the suse makedvd script to create a dvd of only the 5 OSS CDs.

OTOH, you could just install from the normal DVD, and uncheck the "non-free" package selection, your problem neatly solved.

Presto, no java, no flash and no acrobat reader for you!

openSUSE 10.2 RC1

Posted Nov 26, 2006 1:12 UTC (Sun) by tajyrink (subscriber, #2750) [Link]

Ah, I didn't know of that, nice that you can uncheck such a box when installing. I've just been doing FTP updates mainly. I'm a SUSE user from ca. 5.3 era, though nowadays using more Debian and Ubuntu.

openSUSE 10.2 RC1

Posted Nov 27, 2006 10:08 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

Well, you're 100% free software. No distro *ever* has been `100% GPL', not least because of little things like the network utilities, oh, and glibc and libgcc as well. :)

openSUSE 10.2 RC1

Posted Nov 27, 2006 16:10 UTC (Mon) by proski (guest, #104) [Link]

Nobody forces you to use the add-on CD - avoid that and you're 100% GPL

There is a huge difference between "all packages are 100% GPL", which you were saying originally and "nobody forces you to use non-free packages", which you are saying now.

I'm not sure what any of that has to do with whether SuSE is free. It comes with the same programs as debian, redhat, gentoo etc - if SuSE is not "free" then neither are any of the other distros.

Again, there is a huge difference between "free" (as defined by FSF) and "available for ... unrestricted use" as you said in your comment. Unfortunately, software patents can restrict free software. I was commenting on "unrestricted use" from your comment (which would imply patent immunity), and now you are reverting to "free" from the comment you were replying to.

openSUSE 10.2 RC1

Posted Nov 25, 2006 11:40 UTC (Sat) by niner (guest, #26151) [Link] (1 responses)

The Microsoft/Novell deal does only cover the enterprise products. openSUSE is not covered, so it's status is just the same that it was a few weeks ago, and the software it contains is just as free (appart from the completely optional Add-on CD of course).

openSUSE 10.2 RC1

Posted Nov 27, 2006 16:17 UTC (Mon) by proski (guest, #104) [Link]

I was not implying that OpenSUSE is covered by the agreement with Microsoft.

openSUSE 10.2 RC1

Posted Nov 25, 2006 16:55 UTC (Sat) by epeeist (guest, #1743) [Link] (8 responses)

> Just as open as ever - all packages GPL'd, everything available for free download and unrestricted use.

The packages may be GPL, but that doesn't sanitise the MS/Novell agreement.

You should also note that the Mono is a requirement for the distribution and that the software includes the Mono implementation of Windows Forms.

openSUSE 10.2 RC1

Posted Nov 25, 2006 18:22 UTC (Sat) by niner (guest, #26151) [Link] (7 responses)

Just a quick question: do you deliberatley spread falsehoods, or do you just not know any better?

The MS/Novell agreement does not even include openSUSE, so how could it affect it's openess?

You're second sentence is just plain wrong: openSUSE 10.2 does not require installing Mono for anything except some Mono based software like beagle and ZMD, which are completely optional. Package management works wonderfully without ZMS, even quite faster.

openSUSE 10.2 RC1

Posted Nov 26, 2006 1:16 UTC (Sun) by jimmybgood (guest, #26142) [Link] (6 responses)

> The MS/Novell agreement does not even include openSUSE

But it does confer protection to any non-commercial Linux developer and even paid Novell _and_ openSUSE developers, but _not_ Linux developers paid by anyone else. So IANAL nor am I Richard Stallman, but I believe the argument runs something like this:

1) openSUSE developer writes code that infringes on MS patent (but is protected by MS-Novell agreement).

2) openSUSE distributes the code to developer who is paid by Redhat.

3) Redhat developer modifies the code, but can't distribute it because it infringes on MS patent.

4) Therefore, whatever license openSUSE distributes under cannot be GPL, because GPL requires that the recipient of GPLed code be allowed to modify and redistribute.

If this had not been intended to poison Redhat in particulat and Linux in general, openSUSE and non-commercial Linux developers wouldn't have been mentioned. Then openSUSE could distribute under the GPL to the world and a non-free license to Novell. Only Novell and their users would be protected from MS, but the code would be free.

openSUSE 10.2 RC1

Posted Nov 26, 2006 2:45 UTC (Sun) by pzb (guest, #656) [Link] (5 responses)

>1) openSUSE developer writes code that infringes on MS patent (but is protected by MS-Novell agreement).
>
>2) openSUSE distributes the code to developer who is paid by Redhat.

The failure in your logic is that Novell has said "It has always been our policy in all development, open source and proprietary, to stay away from code that infringes another's patents, and we will continue to develop software using these standard practices." (from http://www.novell.com/linux/microsoft/faq_opensource.html) I do not think there is any reason to believe that they will be changing this, and so will not be any open source code that is accepted into openSUSE that knowingly infringes on patents, from Microsoft or anyone else.

There is no indication that openSUSE code cannot be distributed under the GPL, as long as there are no infringed patents. The MS/Novell agreement does not change this, as far as I can see.

openSUSE 10.2 RC1

Posted Nov 26, 2006 3:53 UTC (Sun) by jimmybgood (guest, #26142) [Link] (4 responses)

And your logic relies on Novell practicing what they preach. I've done business with Microsoft and I've done business with Novell and I'd believe and trust MS before I would Novell.

Read this from the link you cited:

"Novell makes no admission that its Linux and open source offerings infringe on any other parties' patents."

It's not a lie, but it's typical lawyers' BS. They aren't saying there are no infringements, they're just refusing to admit to them.

and this:

"We maintain that Mono does not infringe any Microsoft patents."

Again, they aren't saying there are none. They're just maintaining that there aren't.

I maintain that if only given a chance, I could satsify you sexually, even though I and everybody I've tried with knows full well I can't get it up anymore.

openSUSE 10.2 RC1

Posted Nov 26, 2006 5:36 UTC (Sun) by beoba (guest, #16942) [Link] (1 responses)

Dude. Gross.

openSUSE 10.2 RC1

Posted Nov 26, 2006 6:14 UTC (Sun) by jimmybgood (guest, #26142) [Link]

I hear you, man, but I'm not the one that posted that link to the Novell site.

openSUSE 10.2 RC1

Posted Nov 26, 2006 12:59 UTC (Sun) by roel (guest, #41887) [Link]

Just supply your email address as well, that would help you collect really useful advertisements.

openSUSE 10.2 RC1

Posted Nov 26, 2006 16:07 UTC (Sun) by thebluesgnr (guest, #37963) [Link]

Novell would be stupid to start using code that infringes Microsoft patents on purpose (though it's impossible to not do it unintentionally when you're distributing an OS), because:

a) the deal can be revoked at any time;

b) the deal only protects some Novell customers, not all of them and not Novell itself;

c) the deal is over in less than 5 years.

So, I think their contributions to OSS (which are many) are as tainted now as they were a few weeks ago.

openSUSE 10.2 RC1

Posted Nov 25, 2006 21:36 UTC (Sat) by syspig (guest, #41889) [Link] (4 responses)

>Just as open as ever - all packages GPL'd, everything available for free download and unrestricted use. So much for the knee-jerk reactions.

Correct, but perhaps you are missing the bigger picture...

I work for a long-time Novell shop. Much as I've been drawn into the Linux camp (quite willingly), Netware/eDirectory/ZenWorks has been a dream from an administrator's standpoint. It works well, it's secure, and it's easily manageable. Still, the Netware part of this equation must come to an end...anyone who doesn't see the writing on the wall here is kidding themselves.

As such, we're rolling out Open Enterprise Server - essentially, Novell services on top of SLES. This allows us to move to Linux servers, with relatively little disruption to our clients and admin tools.

On to the point...the Novell/Microsoft contract didn't bother me initially, and in fact, I welcomed it. I still think too much is being read into it by the naysayers, but that's not relevant. What is important, are the GPL3 considerations. Now that it's clear Novell will be cut off from significant portions of the Linux community once GPL3 takes effect, they simply become a vendor to move away from as quickly as possible.

Novell essentially uses OpenSUSE as a test bed for many open source products that eventually work their way back into their enterprise solutions. As of now, Novell is free to pick and choose from OpenSUSE, waiting for code to mature or see what features garner the most interest. With much of this code switching to GPL3, they will no longer have this pool of code to pull from, and more importantly, may decide to contribute less money and/or developer time to OpenSUSE projects.

So yes - Novell's decision certainly has the potential to hurt OpenSUSE. My view is a little more pragmatic and perhaps optimistic, though. Unlike most folks these days, I consider Novell to be a pretty decent company. They will indeed realize that the GPL3 issue raises a serious hurdle they must overcome, and the only realistic way to do so is to alter their agreement with Microsoft. They certainly know that taking the wrong "fork" in the road (pun intended) will lose them their most loyal customers.

We're perhaps one of Novell's most devoted customers, but much as I like them, there is zero chance we'll use their products if they are based on a forked version of GPL2 code. If they choose to go down this road, the idiocy of that decision will pale in comparison to any fallout from the Microsoft contract.

openSUSE 10.2 RC1

Posted Nov 26, 2006 14:42 UTC (Sun) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link] (3 responses)

GPLv3 may not actually be the problem for Novell that people think it is.

Although it may end up being a problem for Microsoft. A HUGE FUCKING problem for Microsoft.

Imagine this:

Say your a customer of Novell and you buy Novell's operating system which includes GPL'd code.

Now your a 'customer' and are safe from Microsoft.

Now think about this: What Exactly Does It Mean When Your A Customer Buying Novell GPL'd Software?

Your purchasing Novell's software.
GPL'd software.
Your buying it Because it's GPL'd.

GPL software allows you to use the source code. As Novell's customer your using their code in yoru project as stipulated by the GPL license.

Think about that.

To put it another way:
If your a SAMBA developer and you want to make all the source code you want and you want to have protections against Microsoft.. What do you do?

Well what you do is:
1. Goto Novel's website and order a copy of Suse Linux for 80 bucks or whatever they charge you. Your now a customer.
2. You get the cdroms so then you stick some of the source code from Novell's SAMBA version in your CVS repository. As a Novell customer using Novell's source code as stipulated by the GPL.
3. You are now immune against patent lawsuites against Microsoft. And also this should spread to your end users also, because it's stipulated in the license you got as a customer of Novell.

See? Your purchasing the GPL'd software because it's GPL'd. You using code you obtained from Novell as a customer of Novell. As a customer of Novell your redistributing the source code to every corporation on the planet.

Pretty good deal for a few bucks eh? You just purchased yourself several million dollars worth of licensing protections from Microsoft for the cost of a copy of Suse.

You've, of course, heard of the term of 'Money Laundring'?
Well as a Linux developer Novell has just become your 'Microsoft Patent Laundry'.

Microsoft isn't going to like this. As soon as Novell starts distributing GPlv3 code then you can expect to Microsoft to pull a fast reverse out of this deal. It's not a violation of the GPLv3, your just a Novell customer using the GPLv3 code as the licensing terms have been delivered to you.

Patent language and all.

Now I don't know if this is right or not or if I am completely misunderstanding the whole GPLv3 patent language.. but look at this:

Eben Moglen comments on the subject:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/20/eben_moglen_on_mi...

Start Snippet----

"Our further strategy is to finish GPL 3 in a way which gives us, in the free world, what we must have, and which is otherwise respectful of the needs of people who use the free world's products in whatever legitimate way they do them.

"We believe agreement on all the major issues is now within reach. We're going to publish a last-call draft very soon, that will show agreement has been reached with most of the major parties on all the major issues, and now it's time to finish the license and put it in place, and get the benefit of the protection that it accords us - at a time when the protection is really needed."

So how will adopting GPL 3 torpedo the Novell-Microsoft agreement?

Moglen told us:

"Suppose GPL3 says something like, 'if you distribute (or procure the distribution), of a program (or parts of a program) - and if you make patent promises partially to some subset of the distributees of the program - then under this license you have given the same promise or license at no cost in royalties or other obligations to all persons to whom the program is distributed'."

"If GPL 3 goes into effect with these terms in it, Novell will suddenly becomes a patent laundry; the minute Microsoft realizes the laundry is under construction it will withdraw."

----End Snippet

So some clarification on this would be welcome..

openSUSE 10.2 RC1

Posted Nov 27, 2006 9:47 UTC (Mon) by forthy (guest, #1525) [Link] (2 responses)

It's even better. GPLv3 sais that whenever you buy a GPL software from someone who owns a patent that's violated in this software, you get a transferrable license of that patent, which is just limited to GPL software (you can't transfer it to proprietary software). So: Buy a SLES/SLED support contract from Microsoft, which is allowed to sell that through the devil's pact. Now you not only have a convenant not to sue, but also a license. Isn't that wonderful?

openSUSE 10.2 RC1

Posted Nov 27, 2006 10:51 UTC (Mon) by mjthayer (guest, #39183) [Link] (1 responses)

Unfortunately, Novell does not own Microsoft's patents, they just have a
limited licence to use them. Microsoft is not yet distributing GPL 3
software (who knows what the future may hold?)

So it would probably go back to "if you can't grant those rights, you may
not distribute the software". And in that hypothetical case, neither
could Redhat, Canonical and Debian.

(Disclaimer: IANAL. Just in case anyone thought I was).

openSUSE 10.2 RC1

Posted Nov 27, 2006 11:15 UTC (Mon) by niner (guest, #26151) [Link]

Novell does not even have a license to use them, only their customers get one (if you want to call it "license").

But apart from that your asessment seems just right. Of course, IANAL, too.