On Thursday 23 March 2006 13:34, Carlos E. R. wrote: > The Tuesday 2006-03-21 at 14:13 +0100, Lenz Grimmer wrote: > > Carlos E. R. wrote: > > > I understand that 'b' would apply to ftp distribution, 'c' to the dvd. > > > If it doesn't, SuSE/Novell can ask them (ie, "mutual agreement"). > > > > This was actually what I did when I was still maintaining Pine. SUSE has > > an explicit approval from the University of Washington to distribute > > pine. > > That's fantastic! There is no problem then ;-)
I'm no licenses expert - but unless this approval allows SUSE users to change the code and release their changes to the public, there's still a problem with claiming that it's OSS. I don't think this changes anything - of course Novell is in the clear in terms of legal action - but we still need (1) the licenses to change, (2) these apps moved to non-oss section or (3) these apps to be replaced completely. SUSE has a reputation for not being as free (libre) and open as other distros - I assume one of the reasons for making opensuse, the 10.0 oss-version, the very proactive attitude towards binary-only kernel modules etc. are partly a strategy to shake this image. Including Pine/Pico and claiming they're OSS is harmful to our image - and to free software altogether. I don't think this should be taken lightly. cb400f --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
