On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 09:05:20PM -0400, Allen wrote:
U, I don't think it's ever been a to secret report that SUSE is from
Germany, and the GmBH part, is the same thing as the TM is here.
Actually, GmbH is the same thing as LLC in the USA. Nearly a word
perfect translation, even.
On Tuesday 11 October 2005 9:00 pm, houghi wrote:
On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 06:41:55PM -0400, Michael K. Dolan Jr. wrote:
We seem to be in sync Anders... I beat you by 1 minute though :)
I still declare him the winner, because you cheat by top posting.
GOOD point!
Fred
--
Paid purchaser of
Daniel Secareanu wrote:
Okies, here's my short comment on this issue:
1. Berni, you work for non profits, so do I. The license says:
You may make and use unlimited copies of the Software for Your
distribution and use within Your Organization.
I say: Get someone from that non profit to
Berni,
Berni Elbourn wrote:
Daniel Secareanu wrote:
Okies, here's my short comment on this issue:
1. Berni, you work for non profits, so do I. The license says:
You may make and use unlimited copies of the Software for Your
distribution and use within Your Organization.
I say: Get someone
On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 08:51:35PM -0400, Michael K Dolan Jr wrote:
Marcel, absolutely not true. I'm an attorney in the U.S. I'm just
catching up on email so maybe someone else already said this...
Top posting lawyers, you must be popular ;)
On Tue, 2005-10-11 at 23:23 -0300, Marcel
Tuesday 11 Oct 2005 16:47 samaye Berni Elbourn alekhiit:
Ok, so after everything that was previously said I thought I would check
again back in Open Suse land to see if the Novell software license had
been reviewed.
I have downloaded both flavours of 10.0 I still find that OpenSuse and
Suse
Anders Johansson wrote:
On Tuesday 11 October 2005 13:17, Berni Elbourn wrote:
I have downloaded both flavours of 10.0 I still find that OpenSuse and
Suse Linux are copyrighted
As far as I know, everything ever produced is copyrighted, whether it says so
or not. Unless it explicitly
Op dinsdag 11 oktober 2005 13:25, schreef Shriramana Sharma:
Tuesday 11 Oct 2005 16:47 samaye Berni Elbourn alekhiit:
Ok, so after everything that was previously said I thought I would check
again back in Open Suse land to see if the Novell software license had
been reviewed.
I have
Ben, Shirama et al
I am sorry - this is a bit technical. At this stage the license affects
those of us who have provided services based on Suse.
Home usage and proper business bought copies, of Suse 10 are not affected.
Berni
On Tuesday 11 October 2005 15:09, Berni Elbourn wrote:
Anders Johansson wrote:
On Tuesday 11 October 2005 13:17, Berni Elbourn wrote:
I have downloaded both flavours of 10.0 I still find that OpenSuse and
Suse Linux are copyrighted
As far as I know, everything ever produced is
On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 02:09:51PM +0100, Berni Elbourn wrote:
As far as I know, everything ever produced is copyrighted, whether it says
so or not. Unless it explicitly relinquishes copyright (public domain) it
will always be copyrighted. You know that the GPL is a copyright based
license,
On Tuesday 11 October 2005 15:28, houghi wrote:
That is what I read. You read something else and choose to leave. I wish
you all the best with any other dirstibution. Don't forget to unsubscribe.
The License you agree upon installation on says:
cut
The Software is a collective work of Novell.
2005/10/11, Jonas Helgi Palsson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
2) you do not bundle or combine the Software
with another offering (e.g., software, hardware, or service).
That's a real problem for me, I'm directing a project to install free of
cost suse linux in a lot o hardware stores, that in an effort
houghi wrote:
On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 02:09:51PM +0100, Berni Elbourn wrote:
The majority of programs on this CD falls under the GNU General Public
License (GPL). This license can be found in the file COPYING.
That is what I read. You read something else and choose to leave. I wish
you all
On Tuesday 11 October 2005 15:40, Marcel Mourguiart wrote:
2005/10/11, Jonas Helgi Palsson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
2) you do not bundle or combine the Software
with another offering (e.g., software, hardware, or service).
That's a real problem for me, I'm directing a project to install free of
Where did you get this license text from? Is this off the OSS distro or
GM? What's the file location where I can view it?
Jonas Helgi Palsson wrote:
On Tuesday 11 October 2005 15:28, houghi wrote:
That is what I read. You read something else and choose to leave. I wish
you all the best
Tuesday 11 Oct 2005 19:31 samaye Berni Elbourn alekhiit:
You may make and distribute unlimited copies of
the Software outside Your organization provided that: 1) You receive
no consideration; and, 2) you do not bundle or combine the Software
with another offering (e.g., software, hardware, or
On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 03:01:39PM +0100, Berni Elbourn wrote:
I did have this permission from the previous Suse organisation which is
why I am here now!
And you thought that a public mailinglist is the place to ask? Well, you
did not realy ask, you made a statement that you left.
houghi
--
2005/10/11, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Am Dienstag, 11. Oktober 2005 15:40 schrieb Marcel Mourguiart:
2005/10/11, Jonas Helgi Palsson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
2) you do not bundle or combine the Software
with another offering (e.g., software, hardware, or service).
That's a real
On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 08:49:34PM +0530, Shriramana Sharma wrote:
snip
So unless we know the exact nature of your service and how SUSE Linux is
connected with it, we cannot comment further on your situation, I am afraid.
I think he want comment from Novell, not from us. Even if sombody here
Shriramana Sharma wrote:
Tuesday 11 Oct 2005 19:31 samaye Berni Elbourn alekhiit:
You may make and distribute unlimited copies of
the Software outside Your organization provided that: 1) You receive
no consideration; and, 2) you do not bundle or combine the Software
with another offering
On Tuesday 11 October 2005 17:55, Berni Elbourn wrote:
Hopefully
someone from Novell or Suse will reply soon.
Someone has.
But if you want an official reply regarding the legalities, this is hardly the
right forum. You need to contact the Novell sales/partners people, they
should be able to
Right, that's the license.txt from the GM version's root directory -
where in the OSS distro do you have to comply with that license?
Remember, the GM version is the commercial version with other vendor's
commercial software included. It makes sense that one has a license
requirement that
Renegade Penguin wrote:
Sell your services separately, give OpenSUSE away freely. This is
indeed a valid method of complying with the license.
Also, if the same licensing clause applies in the paid version of SUSE,
the same methodology applies. In that case, SELL the software
separately
2005/10/11, Michael K. Dolan Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Right, that's the license.txt from the GM version's root directory -
where in the OSS distro do you have to comply with that license?
I think this is what you are asking for:
houghi wrote:
On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 03:17:01PM +0100, Berni Elbourn wrote:
Given the confusion on this matter I'll hang around for some
clarification. Is that ok with you?
What do you want? In your first mail you wrote:
q
Goodbye Suse good luck for the future, and thanks for all the
On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 10:14:35AM -0700, Renegade Penguin wrote:
Novell cannot impose any restrictions by taking away anything that the
GPL allows.
You indeed can make a custom distro based upon all of the GPL Open
Source software in the source. Whitebox does this with RedHat.
Okies, here's my short comment on this issue:
1. Berni, you work for non profits, so do I. The license says:
You may make and use unlimited copies of the Software for Your
distribution and use within Your Organization.
I say: Get someone from that non profit to download OpenSUSE for use
So you shall not use SUSE or Novell when redistributing the RPMs.
Ok, but where ?? in the CD name, the iso name ?? marketing ?? inside the
distro ??
I'm asking because is easy to remove the suse name from the cd name or iso,
but is a little tricky to do the same for every packages from SUSE (
Marcel Mourguiart escribió:
So you shall not use SUSE or Novell when redistributing the RPMs.
Ok, but where ?? in the CD name, the iso name ?? marketing ?? inside the
distro ??
I think that restriction apply if you want to create a product based
on SUSE Linux (ie. a new distribution)
We seem to be in sync Anders... I beat you by 1 minute though :)
Anders Johansson wrote:
On Wednesday 12 October 2005 00:22, Marcel Mourguiart wrote:
I don't found nothing in the GPL licence that indicate that the logos and
trademark doesn't apply:
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
On Wednesday 12 October 2005 00:41, Michael K. Dolan Jr. wrote:
We seem to be in sync Anders... I beat you by 1 minute though :)
I'll get you next time :)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Berni Elbourn wrote:
Renegade Penguin wrote:
Sell your services separately, give OpenSUSE away freely. This is
indeed a valid method of complying with the license.
Also, if the same licensing clause applies in the paid version of
SUSE, the same
On Wednesday 12 October 2005 00:52, Marcel Mourguiart wrote:
Ok, but I have never see that probed in court, have you ?
If you've never seen trademark law upheld in court you can't have looked very
hard. As a quick example, have a look on the internet for Microsoft corp. v.
Lindows. It's a
2005/9/30, Renegade Penguin [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
You obviously do not understand trademarks OR. copyright. Here's an
example:
Go put Microsoft artwork as you call it onto OpenSUSE. Watch how fast
MS would sue for trademark infringement as well as copyright infringement.
Show me a package
On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 06:41:55PM -0400, Michael K. Dolan Jr. wrote:
We seem to be in sync Anders... I beat you by 1 minute though :)
I still declare him the winner, because you cheat by top posting.
houghi
--
Quote correct (NL) http://www.briachons.org/art/quote/
Zitiere richtig (DE)
On Wednesday 12 October 2005 02:45, Marcel Mourguiart wrote:
And you miss this part:
*0.* This License applies to any program or other work which contains a
notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under
the terms of this General Public License.
Which part of
2005/10/11, Anders Johansson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Wednesday 12 October 2005 02:45, Marcel Mourguiart wrote:
And you miss this part:
*0.* This License applies to any program or other work which contains a
notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under
the terms
2005/10/11, Anders Johansson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Wednesday 12 October 2005 02:45, Marcel Mourguiart wrote:
And you miss this part:
*0.* This License applies to any program or other work which contains a
notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under
the terms
On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 10:43:31PM -0300, Marcel Mourguiart wrote:
I understand that perfectly, know can you show a legal real life example
probe it court when your words are not just air ?? And please with a GPL
copyright agreement.
Wether or not something has come up in court is irrelevat to
2005/10/11, houghi [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 10:43:31PM -0300, Marcel Mourguiart wrote:
I understand that perfectly, know can you show a legal real life example
probe it court when your words are not just air ?? And please with a GPL
copyright agreement.
Wether or not
On Wednesday 12 October 2005 03:43, Marcel Mourguiart wrote:
I understand that perfectly, know can you show a legal real life example
probe it court when your words are not just air ??
I don't understand what you're trying to say. No one has ever tried to kill
someone by forcinf peanuts down
I top posted, just too say that the cuted text is already responded in a
previous mail.
I think you can copy the kdebase3-SuSE package verbatim freely, but not
include the trademarks in any changed version you create
I don't want to change the kdebase3-SuSE package, i'm removing and adding
2005/10/12, houghi [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 11:23:59PM -0300, Marcel Mourguiart wrote:
I think a law that's just says copyright does not apply to trademarks
is
enough.
Well, obviously. Also most companies will not evem think starting a
lawcase over this, because it is
44 matches
Mail list logo
