Message-Id: <200203122040.g2CKeIp20557@mail.moulen.org> From: Anthony Moulen <ajmoulen@moulen.org> Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 15:43:02 -0500 Subject: Re: [suse-sparc] Will there be a SuSE 8.0 for Sparc?
On Tuesday 12 March 2002 02:39 pm, IT3 Stuart Blake Tener, USNR-R wrote:
> Mr. Walker:
>
> Let me respond to several things you mentioned. It should be
> pointed out that a derivative work (under US law) is not defined by the
> GPL, but is defined by the courts and legislation enacted. You may wish
> to think that the GPL is this god like entity ruling the free software
> world, but it is not, it is merely a licensing agreement. And no
> licensing agreement can subvert legislative enactment or the rulings of
> the courts (at least not in the US legal system). So a derivative work
> is still defined by those entities.
>
Actually this is an incorrect statement. You are applying non-software case
law to software. This would make Norton Anti-Virus a derivative work of
Microsoft Windows. Because by all intents the product can not run
independent of the other. This is an incorrect statement. Also case law
would hold that the OS, the bare code that allows for applications to
communicate with the underlying hardware, do not represent the foundation of
all those applications. Instead it supplies a mechanism by which those
applications can run, and those applications are not derivative works but
independent works which use APIs to communicate through the OS to the
hardware. And while you say that a licensing agreement can not subvert
legislative actions, you are incorrect. A licensing agreement essentially
does just that. It sets boundaries and limitations to your rights as a
requirement for you to use said product. You are essentially giving away
rights that you may otherwise have in order to use the product.
> Secondly I never said that running a non-GPL application on a
> GPL OS made your binary GPL, you said that, not me.
>
> Lastly "reaching" as you put it, is also known as case law. Case
> law is what courts historically follow. Once a case has defined opinion
> and it has been accepted as good law, then other courts will try to rule
> with the same logic in mind. That is where this idea of derivative work
> comes from not wishful thinking, not the spirit of the GPL, and not what
> we think, but what has been done historically already in the courts.
While this is an interesting piece, and true in and of itself, it does not
mean that case law defines all future action. It is used as a foundation
upon which future actions are defined. And the courts, at least in the US
where you seem to be pinning your statements on, understand implicitly that
case law as it stands for Software is very shakey.
>
> It ought also be pointed out that I am not made sick by YAST, I
> was only trying to say that I am willing to pay to purchase the SPARC
> version of SuSE because they place the ISO images of the binaries and
> source on the web (ftp) or have clearly allowed others to do it. This
> IS in the spirit of the GPL, creating a FUD factor for other (not SuSE)
> to distribute SuSE binaries with YAST inclusive thereto, in my view, is
> not in the spirit of the GPL.
>
> I am unwilling to support the I386 version of SuSE since they
> work (as I have been told) to retard efforts of people to place bootable
> binary ISOs of I386 version on even private ftp or websites with YAST
> inclusive thereto. However, I do not make any effort to stop my clients
> if they plan to use it. I was only referring to where the money I earn
> goes.
I think perhaps you should go back to the original statements from SuSE as to
why they do not release ISOs.
1. It is expensive for them to do so - man-power to decouple licensed
software for the ISOs, bandwidth to allow them to be downloaded, lost revenue
from users not purchasing packaged editions. Look to Mandrake's recent
announcements as an indication of what happens to companies which release
ISOs without a foundation to maintain profits.
2. They do not own the licenses to release certain packages on the ISOs.
This goes back to statement 1.
3. They do not limit your ability to share the YaST system with whomever
you wish, they just don't license it under the GPL. There are restrictions
to distribution of modifed versions. Read the license for information, but
it is clear that you may distribute YaST for free, just not for royalties.
So again if you wish, you could build your own ISO and distribute them, but
you could not call it SuSE as you run into Trademark Law which would prevent
you from doing so.
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: suse-sparc-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands, e-mail: suse-sparc-help@suse.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.0 : Tue Mar 12 2002 - 12:43:03 PST