Hmm, it still seems to be an EULA

Posted Nov 26, 2008 16:10 UTC (Wed) by epa (subscriber, #39769)
Parent article: openSUSE Sports a New License (Ding dong, the EULAs dead)

By downloading, installing, or using openSUSE 11.1, you agree to the terms of this agreement.

Isn't this the fundamental objection - that it claims you agree to something just by using a computer program? Surely it should say instead 'you do not have to accept this agreement, since you have not signed it', as the GPL does. Then it would not have a claim (which is either misleading or dangerous, depending on your point of view) to impose additional restrictions beyond copyright law.

Hmm, it still seems to be an EULA

Posted Nov 26, 2008 16:46 UTC (Wed) by zotz (guest, #26117) [Link] (6 responses)

"By downloading, installing, or using openSUSE 11.1, you agree to the terms of this agreement."

Actually can you wrap anything around a GPL program that another person holds copyrights to?

Wouldn't that be trying to add additional terms? (Or couldn't it?)

all the best,

drew

Hmm, it still seems to be an EULA

Posted Nov 26, 2008 20:08 UTC (Wed) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] (2 responses)

If you download or install a GPL program, you are making a copy, an action that requires the permission of the copyright holder and agreement to the license. If you don't agree, then you can't copy. So I have no problems with language that says that downloading implies acceptance of the free software licenses on the code in the distro.

The only questionable part is "using", as in using a program that someone else has installed for you. But someone who just does that isn't going to see this text in any case.

Hmm, it still seems to be an EULA

Posted Nov 27, 2008 0:04 UTC (Thu) by bluss (guest, #47454) [Link]

Good try but, no, the responsibility is on the distributor's side.

Hmm, it still seems to be an EULA

Posted Nov 27, 2008 3:31 UTC (Thu) by zotz (guest, #26117) [Link]

This doesn't address the issue.

(I have my doubts that what you say is correct anyway, but even if you are, it doesn't address the issue I raise.)

What you say would only hold if the license agreement was the GPL, no changes. And what if the distro should contain multiple copyleft licensed programs. Is that clearer?

First I am trying to be sure we understand each other correctly, after that, if we still disagree, we can go from there.

all the best,

drew

Hmm, it still seems to be an EULA

Posted Nov 27, 2008 14:28 UTC (Thu) by MKesper (subscriber, #38539) [Link] (2 responses)

It's useful to look at what you're agreeing to: http://download.opensuse.org/factory/repo/oss/EULA.txt
If you read through carefully, you'll notice that it basically says (1) this stuff is copyrighted, (2) this stuff has no warranty and (3) you are aware that there are US export controls.

Hmm, it still seems to be an EULA

Posted Nov 27, 2008 16:57 UTC (Thu) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link]

I think it would be better if you clicked a button saying 'Yes, I have read this notice' rather than 'I agree to the licence terms'.

Hmm, it still seems to be an EULA

Posted Nov 30, 2008 4:56 UTC (Sun) by leshachek (guest, #49071) [Link]

I think GPL pretty much clear explains copyrighted and copylefted approach to use the software products. I can't see anything new in this OpenSUSE 'agreement' rather then just a compilation of license agreements of all OpenSUSE components.
This compilation doesn't limit you to individual license neither supersedes any one. The latter one is some interesting point. Some firmware included in the distro has a proprietary nature of licensing and this license can not be superseded with an open source nature of licenses of OpenSUSE. I maybe wrong in such interpretation.