Paul, my apologies for being irritable on the subject.  I'll tone down
the rhetoric.
Quoting Paul Linehan (plinehan@yahoo.com):
> Indeed - that I actually had understood prior to all this - for
> example commercial entities with trial/limited/crippled editions.
>
> Which is no problem - I don't see why that should be a problem for
> SuSE though - surely the more the merrrier as far as they're
> concerned.
Anything either you or I have to say about their motivation is
speculation.  Bearing that disclaimer in mind, here's mine:  They make
money from selling boxed sets.  They're glad to make some versions
available for almost-unrestricted distribution (not "for value") via CD
duplication or the Internet that they estimate won't substitute for
boxed-set sales.
For example, they _could_ have packaged what I call the "FTP edition"
in ISO9660 images.  The fact that they didn't suggests to me that they
see the inconvenience of mirroring FTP Edition i386 files (which, at the
moment, are v. 8.0) as motivation for all but the really determined to
buy boxed sets, instead.
Likewise, they _could_ release a v. 8.0 (current) version of the
"evaluation" single-disk ISO image.  Instead, they always keep it
several versions behind.  This again seems like an incentive to buy a
boxed set, after "evaluating" SuSE via the ISO image.
Again, the above is my speculation (only) about their motivations.  All
we know of a certainty is what permissions they've granted, which are a
bit messy and complex, but nonetheless quite clear.
Those permissions, as a reminder, apply to the SuSE-produced components,
YaST, YaST2, the distribution installer program, and possibly other
utilities that I don't know of.  _They_ wrote that code, and have every
right to grant or withhold permissions as suit them best.
> One can suspect what one likes. What I didn't understand was that SuSE
> had proprietary extensions that it wasn't prepared to allow people to
> use under the GPL or even under  a FreeBSD style licence.
Hmm, let's slow down, here:  There's a persistent misconception that
it's possible to place somebody else's work under a new licence without
his permission.  Not so.  There is nothing in copyright law that would
make that possible.
The copyright _owner_ has inherent rights in his (e.g., software) work,
and is entitled to issue as many _instances_ of his code under diverse
licences as he wishes.  (If he gives you a copy with no licence
statement, there's effectively a default licence by operation of
copyright law.  To avoid going into a long digression, let me just say
that it's a proprietary licence by default.  That's why, in order to
have open source software at all, there must be an explicit licence
from the copyright holder.)
No Linux distribution _ever_ entails relicensing people's software
without their explicit permission -- since no such relicensing can occur
at all.
You cannot get away with taking SuSE Linux AG's work and redistributing
it under what you claim to be a BSD licence, or the GPL, or anything at
all other than what the copyright owner has specified, because you
simply lack the right to do so.  Claiming to do it would be copyright
violation.
> I thought that the model for the likes of SuSE was selling support and
> customisation, rather than what I thought of as the core "product". I
> thought that the likes of Yast came under core - maybe it worked in
> the glory days before, say, 2001 - I can understand that they might
> want to make more money, but the way in which they have done it, seems
> to me, to be be against the spirit of the GPL.
If Stallman and friends at the GPL (let alone Linus Torvalds and kernel
contributors) had intended to prohibit putting GPLed works on the same
CDs as proprietary ones, and selling the result only via retail stores
(plus mail order, etc.) in shrink-wrapped boxes, I'm 100% certain they
could and would have done so.
Guess what?  They did not.  They didn't even require that anybody give
you copies of the GPLed components, ever, at all.  All they did was
require that _if_ you received GPLed software lawfully, then you had to
be able to get matching source code for a limited period, upon request.
Spirit of the GPL, you say?  I'd suggest that Stallman and company knew
exactly what they were doing, and that the degree of access to GPLed
software is exactly what they had in mind.
> All I want is the OS and GNU apps. I was under the impression that for
> *_those_* all one needed was to pay for the media and not for the code
> itself?
>
> Ai-je tort?
Mais si.
You are indeed under a misconception, and may want to read the text of
the GPL to verify this fact.  The GPL does _not_ entitle you to a copy
of any binary software.  Section 2 provides for rights to access to
matching source code _if_ you have lawfully received a copy of a covered
binary.  That section provides three alternative mechanisms for the
distributor to provide such access.  And SuSE _do_ actually provide
exactly that access.
Or so I think to be the case.  If you believe there's some GPLed
codebase that you can lawfully receive from SuSE whose matching source
code they are not making available exactly as required, please tell us
which codebase that is.  (That would be SuSE Linux AG's headache, not
any of ours, but it might be interesting to examine.)
> My understanding was that binaries or whatever could be received for
> the cost of the media plus a token of one's appreciation (the latter
> being subject to agreement between the parties) - I was offering a
> bottle of wine plus maybe a pint or two and a chat for a copy - I
> don't know what the going rate is.
Your understanding is almost correct, but not quite.  (1) The access
provisions of the GPL concern access to _source code_, not binaries.
(2) It kicks in _only_ for people who've lawfully received covered
binaries.  (3) _Covered_ software means instances of codebases actually
placed under the GNU GPL by their copyright owners.  The mere act of
placing a piece of software on a CD-ROM with GPLed software doesn't GPL
it.
In fact, the assertion to the contrary is a favourite FUD tactic from
enemies of Linux:  They're forever trying to convince software producers
that using GPLed software in any way with their proprietary offerings
will "taint" their copyrights and force them to put their property under
the GPL.  It's simply not so.
> If I wanted support from SuSE, that would be a different issue, and
> one for which I would be willing to pay.
That's nice, but they're not _offering_ the exact contents of the boxed
sets free of charge and lawful to duplicate & redistribute, or "borrow".
For one thing, as you will have noticed from my earlier listing of
components, the boxed sets' CD-ROMs include quite a lot of _third-party_
proprietary software.  SuSE Linux AG _cannot_ allow you (or your friend)
to hand out copies of that software freely, because it's not theirs in
the first place.
> I have a friend with 7.3 - I think that I'll end up doing that!
If you mean the 3-CD core set of RH 7.3, good.  It's a quite decent
distribution.  But bear in mind that the RH 7.3 boxed sets include
some other third-party applications whose owners would be very upset to
find them being copied or "borrowed".
> I have now realised this, thanks to your kind explanations. I can
> borrow them, but not copy them?
No.
Look, it's a collection of software, many elements of which may not be
lawfully just given out to multiple people:  Your friend installing it,
then _not_ erasing it but merely letting you "borrow" the CDs results in
the product being installed in multiple places.  That's unauthorised
copying.
> And, as I've tried to explain, is not the licence terms on, say,
> trials for commercial company x to which I object, it is the way SuSE
> appears, at least to my I.T. peasant self, to have mixed up
> proprietary and open stuff.
Well, if you don't like SuSE, then you probably won't like Caldera
eDesk, Xandros Desktop, Lycoris Deskop LX, Libranet, Lindows, or KRUD,
either.  Depending on your criteria, you also might not like Red Hat,
Linux-Mandrake, or Yellow Dog, since all of those have boxed-set retail
sets that include CD-ROMs that may not be publicly redistributed.
(I don't even use SuSE.  I'm just trying to clarify the licensing
question.)
--
Cheers,                                             Live Faust, die Jung.
Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com
--
Irish Linux Users' Group: ilug@linux.ie
http://www.linux.ie/mailman/listinfo/ilug for (un)subscription information.
List maintainer: listmaster@linux.ie