----- Original Message ----- From: Monte Milanuk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2001 9:27 PM Subject: Re: OT: SuSE review
> On Sat, 17 Nov 2001 19:46:28 +0100 (CET) > Wolfgang Pfeiffer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > ... some reasons *for me* I probably never will touch SuSe even > > with my fingertips: > > > > 1: > > As far as I understood it, you cannot easily download a free complete > > SuSe version as you still can do this with RedHat. > > > > http://lists.suse.com/archive/suse-linux-e/2001-Apr/0010.html > > > > > > According to > > http://www.linuxiso.org/suse.html > > > > " ... Intel 7.3 Live Evaluation iso (runs from cd only) ... " > > > > > > True, you can't d/l a free iso image and install from that. But you *can* downlad via FTP and do a network install. Or, if you have broadband, you could conceivably do network install over the Internet. > > > > > 2: > > > > But the fact you can use a real SuSe system only -- as it seems -- if you > > have enough money to pay for it is not the most important compared to the > > following: > > > > "YaST is not free software" (Note: Yast is property of Suse) > > http://lists.cglug.org/pipermail/members/2000q3/000022.html > > > > Their Yast license basically says you can change the Yast source, but > > you're not allowed to sell it without "written consent of SuSE GmbH", but > > Suse is allowed to *sell* your edited version: > > > > http://garbo.uwasa.fi/pub/linux/distributions/SuSE/7.2/COPYRIGHT.yast > > " ... SuSE GmbH reserves the right to accept parts or all amendments of a > > modified version of YaST into the official version of YaST free of > > charge. The Licensee has no bearing on this. ... " > > > > And this exactly is why I say Suse have given up more or less the idea of > > Free Software, with the consequence, that I advise everybody interested in > > it to buy every possible Linux distro she or he wants to test *except* the > > Suse one. > > > > Have to disagree w/ you there. SuSE does sponsor a lot of the work done on KDE and the Linux kernel as well, plus ReiserFS, LVM, and a few others. The fact that they choose to keep their installer/admin tool proprietary bites, to be sure, but is somewhat understandable. People seem to have the misconception that a company has to give away all of it's crown jewels to be truly a part of the 'Open Source' community. If I'm not mistaken, SuSE does make the source to yast accessible, they just think that they have put a lot of work into it and would rather not give it away, seeng as how they contribute heavily to the community already. And, I might add, OPEN SOURCE and FREE are NOT synonyms. As a matter of fact, some are quite upset with FSF because of their insistence that everything be FREE. And some claim the FSF has become a liability to those that believe in open source because they want to push it further. Just making the point. I haven't really made up my mind except to say, the writer owns it and has every right to do with it as (s)he pleases, including not releasing or working on it at all. _______________________________________________ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
