Ulrich Windl wrote: > > > Is there some guarantee that Zenworks is free from patent claims (from > Novell)? > > The issue here is not just patent claims, the whole license situation around ZENworks is a bit foggy, since it comes NOT under a GPL but under an LGPL license. Which is legally questionable, LPGL explicitly is only applicable for libraries and derived (depending) software. Now have a look at yast sw_single and you will realize that in former SUSEs you will see a section "Depencies". This section is gone now (why???), so you have to dig in (rpm -R) in order to find out what libraries ZENworks depends on (on mono and others) From LGPL text now: "You must give prominent notice with each copy of the work that the Library is used in it and that the Library and its use are covered by this License." So where's the _prominent_ notice in ZENworks components? Therefore one could argue ZENworks is not derived from mono libraries, just because of the missing prominent notice.
As devil's advocate I claim now: ZENworks LGPL license is void for the reasons I just lined out (and a few more). So what license does ZENworks run under? if any? Anybody proving I am wrong is very welcome :-) In lesser legalese: Why don't mono and ZENworks come with GPL license? What's the reason? FMF --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
