Slashdot Mirror
SuSE, Czech Localization, And An Odd Licensing Twist
"According to their FAQ and their official statement in the Czech Linux mailing list (both links are in Czech, sorry), they plan to GPL the StarOffice localization files after May 31, 2001. To make things even more interesting, they additionaly permit to use the StarOffice localization under Debian and Slackware after February 28, 2001. But when you use Red Hat, Mandrake, TurboLinux or anything else, you either have to switch your distribution, or wait until June.
Do not get me wrong, they can put any license they want on the software they developed. But I definitely do not think this is the right thing to do for an Open source(tm) company.
I should probably add a background info about Linux in the Czech republic: The most difficult part about Czech localization is, that we do not use ISO 8859-1, but ISO 8859-2. So we cannot use the standard PostScript fonts directly, we have problems with software, authors of which think everyone uses ISO 8859-1, etc. The most popular distribution here is definitely Red Hat Linux, but others (such as Debian, Slackware, Mandrake or SuSE are widely used, too). Only SuSE has the development team here, though. In the SuSE Czech (or with its funding) are developed for example the ALSA project, Linux Input drivers, etc. A majority of the Czech kernel developers work at least partly for SuSE (Martin Mares, the kernel PCI guru, Vojtech Pavlik, to name at least few).
So SuSE Czech definitely does some good things, but their StarOffice localization licensing is, to be honest, unfortunate. What do you think about this?
-Yenya (the head of the Czech Linux Users' group)"
ok, aside from the fact that its a dangerous precedant (think mslinux.org), I have another interesting point:
Linux is linux. At what point does it become Debian? (or Redhat, or whatever). If I install it as suse, and then, upgrade some key components, is it now Debian? Is it still Suse?
Gar, and those ads which say "redhat compatible" are really annoying too
SSL Certificate
It won't stop individuals from doing it, but it will make it impossible for RedHat to include it on their CDs. I assume that is their goal.
My Web Page
Open Source... Closed source... What's the diff? Either way I can't feel safe installing it unless I understand the increasingly complicated legalese of the licencing agreement.
On one hand, it is true that if I did truly understand most commercial closed source softwares licencing agreements, I would even be more scared. On the other hand, for something like Linux, while the licencing agreements are less draconian, every second piece of software inside will be differently licenced... Would this force me to read 20 or thirty different licencing agreements with every distro?
Come on, I would rather just compute! When will sanity come to this licencing craze???
Bork!
And people gripe about Red Hat! Does Red Hat do this to ANY of the code they have developed? I don't think the do
It is possible that they have a reason for all this. Maybe they just want to release it for SuSE for debugging so they don't have to worry about compatibility issues with RedHat, Debian, etc. This would also explain the "some distros in Feb, some in May" because it would give them time to debug any crazy interactions. Although most Linux systems are very similar, there are enough differences between distros to cause problems (I've build distros from the ground up, believe me, I know...) Give 'em a break for now, and jump all over them later if they say "SuSE only forever".
I seriously doubt SuSE would purposefully pull something like this for nefarious purposes. Sun, on the other hand...
If I had to guess, it was probably something from Sun. Remember, this is not the GPLed OpenOffice, it's the Sun licensed StarOffice.
Also remember that it will be available for all after May 31, maybe Sun aren't allowing them to do it before.
I'm guessing we'll either have a clarification ("Sun's fault...") or a retraction ("oops, some new guy in legal/marketing screwed up...") within a couple of days.
It's too early to yell battle cries just yet, SuSE has done a lot for open source projects and pay a lot of people to work on them.
Nah, let's start whining about something that seems kinda lame but pretty harmless. Since I don't know czech I guess I would have to take it on faith that this person knows what they are talking about (not the language but the business speak angle can be pretty complicated, especially if it was translated into czech for the web site). But I'll wait to see if anyone gets any verification on this, though on Slashdot these days it seems that there is an awful lot of "chicken little" being posted.
Damn, I am not so interested in bashing Suse as I am Apple, so I guess really don't have a vested interest in this story.......though I am sure that this gives the Redhat crowd a reason to support their distro......not to mention anyone with a gripe against Suse...I can just hear it now: "Once Suse was mean to me and never answered my email......"
Hey, you think your house is cool?
Sounds to me like this is why the GPL is so important. I'm assuming (1) that this about OpenOffice, not just StarOffice, and (2) that the reason they can do this is because they are using the Sun Industry Standards Source License (SISSL) instead of the GPL. (OpenOffice is licensed under both GPL and SISSL, take your pick.)
If SISSL allows you to release such proprietary extensions, then it's a poor choice to allow OpenOffice to be licensed under it. While SuSE sounds like they will do The Right Thing and GPL their mods, what's to prevent someone else from not doing that in an attempt to privatize the whole thing? If OpenOffice is to become such a major project, it is very important for it to remain GPL.
This is similar to the old, ThankGodNoLongerRelevant GNOME/KDE license wars. The license under which core components for Linux are shipped is extremely important; it must be GPL, or else the whole system can breakdown if later on someone sneaks a major subsystem into proprietary land. While OpenOffice isn't as critical (license-wise) as the kernel, X, or GNOME/KDE, it has a shot at being the most popular office suite under Linux, and if the goal is try to keep it open source, it should have a truly open source license.
----------
In a real emergency, we would have all fled in terror, and you would not have been notified.
The translation files are most likely a derived work of the original text strings, which are copyrighted by Sun and licensed under the GPL.
By being a derived work from a GPL material they might be in violation of the GPL. Definetly material for the more license savvy people.
Independently of whether they are violating or not the license it seems like a very bizarre restriction.
Best wishes,
Miguel.
reminds me vaguely of the dmca...
you can only play dvds on licensed players
you can only run the free version of staroffice on licensed os's
although i must say, i like SuSE's method better: they're not preventing you, it's just a law....
but makes you think nonetheless
[note: this is not meant to be a troll, but rather just a different outlook]
Pay attention to Q12 specifically...
Q1: What was involved in the localization?
The majority of strings which StarOffice (SO from here on) uses at runtime are stored in resource files. It is a common technique which allows programmers to separate the program from the data which it uses.
The resource files do not contain only the strings. They also contain dialog window definitions and display elements, menus, mouse pointers, bitmaps, and other important components.
Where are the resources for SO stored? If you install SO to opt/office52, as it is in SuSE Linux, you'll find them in
He who would want to translate SO to another language, e.g. Czech, would have to open the resource files and translate all the strings. He would further have to modify the code to work with all the symbols which the new language may contain.
If you look into any of the aforementioned sources, you'll find that they're not text-editable. There exist specialized resource editors, but SO works with a proprietary resource format, and is therefore not modifiable in this way.
The only person able to modify the resources is the software's author, in this case Sun Microsystems. If it is not interested in localizing for a specific language, there doesn't exist any other way of translating the software.
Incidentally, around the end of 2000, Sun decided to open the source code of SO 5.2 under the title OpenOffice (OO). Thanks to the fact that the source code is key to localization, the opening was met with great anticipation.
When the source code was opened, it was found that several key components which were a part of SO are absent in OO. Perhaps not because Sun wanted to keep them away from prying eyes, but because Sun did not develop themselves, but bought them from third parties. The license under which Sun did so did not allow it to open the code for these components.
Because of this, OO lacked a complete printing system and organizer. In addition, as a work in progress in comparison to SO, OO seemed rather disjointed.
Thus, it was not possible to localize SO because of a proprietary resource format, and it was not worthwhile to localize OO because of its incompleteness.
Q2. StarOffice, OpenOffice, I'm all confused. What did you actually translate?
It was impossible to localize SO thanks to unknown binary resource formats and it was not worthwhile to localize OO because of its incompleteness.
After further examination of both applications, we came to the conclusion that there exists a significant probability that OO uses the same, or similar, resource formats as SO.
SuSE programmers, based on the OO source code, attempted to create a tool which would allow access to strings stored in the binary resource files of SO. Their work was successful and it became possible to consider possibly localizing SO 5.2.
After considering the circumstances, SuSE decided to go ahead with the translation, expecting to finish around the end of 2000.
Q3. Why is the translation over 100MB? It looks like the entire SO and not just the translated strings.
Not really relevant...
Q4-Q7... ditto
Q8. Localization is silly, you should've rather translated OO. You'd have been helping Open Source Software!
We considered localization of OO (viz. Q1), but in the end, because of many reasons, decided to do SO. Consider that our work might have a benefit even for the OO project, and we plan to open the sources of the translation in 2001.
Q9. What'll I find in the so_czech package?
Programs from the polish version of SO, help from the english version, and new czech resource files, a czech dictionary and czech grammar rules.
Q12. Are the translated resource files under the GPL? Can I distribute the Czech SO? Can I use it in a different distribution?
Czech-ified SO 5.2 is freely useable in the SuSE Linux distribution. The Company SuSE CR, s.r.o. will not contest personal use on other distributions. It will , however, legally challenge commercial subjects, if they use the Czech translation of SO without written consent of SuSE CR, s.r.o.
All rights to the translation belong to SuSE CR, s.r.o. Resources are NOT available under GNU GPL.
The translations will be GPL'd 31/5/2001.
Q15. Did SuSE work with Sun on the translation?
Neither the Czech or German divisions of Sun showed, at any time, interest in participating in the effort of translating SO 5.2 to Czech.
---
D34r 5u53:
N0rm4lly, h34ring of what 4pp34rs t0 b3 5uch 4n 3g3gi0us 4bu53 0f th3 GPL w0uld b3 c4us3 f0r m3 t0 0wn j00. (Y'4ll r34lly sh0uld run 4 b3tt3r f1r3wall; 0nly t00k m3 f1ve s3c0nd5 t0 f1nd 4 vun3r4bl3 b0x 0n y0ur 1nt3rn4l n3tw0rk)
But th15 15n't 4n 155u3 0f GPL, 15 1t? 1 f34r d33p d0wn 1n my h34rt th15 15 m0r3 0f 5c0tty at 5un5 d1rty w0rk. H15 l3g4l d3p4rtm3nt g1v1ng j00 4 h4rd t1m3?
4nyw4y, d0n't let th3 5l45hd0t fl4m3r5 g3t y0u d0wn. Wh3n3v3r y0u g3t th053 b45t4rd5 4t 5un t0 g1v3 y0u p3rm15510n 15 f1n3, f0r l1m1t3d d15tr1but10n 15 b3tt3r (4nd n0bl3r) th4n n3v3r 3ng4g1ng 1n th3 3ff0rt 4t 4ll. (Ju5t th1nk 0f h0w m4ny p00r Cz3ch 5kr1p7 k1dd135 w0uld h4ve t0 g0 w1th0ut 4 g00d l0c4l1z3d w0rd pr0c3550r!)
G1v3 3m h3ll, 51nc3r3ly
b0r1s_7h3_h4x0r
3v1l_b0r1s at d4rkr0ck d0t c0 d0t uk
3v1l_b0r1s at d4rkr0ck d0t c0 d0t uk
http c0l0n 5l45h 5l45h www d0t d4rkr0ck d0t c0 d0t uk
I'm afraid I don't agree... SuSe has been doing this all the time with their Yast licence, and I'm not surprised at all to see them doing it again. They are also the only major distribution which doesn't allow downloads of the latest ISOs as soon as new distro hits the road. I have always been surprised by lack of care people pay to this kind of stuff when SuSe does it...
According to other replies, the information is incomplete. As private user, you may use it legally. Some distributions (eg Debian) may use it starting at mar 1st, the rest starting june 1st. Suse is just seeking some reward for their work. I'm not sure if I like it, but it is not as bad as the first post stated.
I should have probably added a bit more to the background info. Here in the Czech republic, the most needed product for Linux in the desktop area is the office suite, and the one with the good (preferrably free at least as in the free beer) translation and localization support (printing in ISO 8859-2, reading MS-Word documents, when MS does not even use ISO 8859-2, but their own proprietary encoding, CP 1250, etc). And StarOffice with the SuSE add-ons is very near to these requirements. There are lots of newbie users who are willing to listen, if you tell them "Buy SuSE, because it gives you a Czech office suite for free".
I view this as an unfair competition, but I doubt this license is valid according to the Czech law (IANAL, though).
-Yenya
--
-Yenya
--
While Linux is larger than Emacs, at least Linux has the excuse that it has to be. --Linus
While I don't know a lot about either Open Office or Star Office, It sounds a little to me like SuSE developed a product for use in the Czech language, borrowing code from another source. It is likely that they have the right to use it and to sell it, but not the right to gpl that code.
This begs the question of incoprorating gpl'd code along with code that I have permission to use, but not give away. What are the legal implications when two liscences collide>
Anyway, it appears to me that SuSE is trying to put out a workable product, then working to make that product conform with the standards of the community.
People needing a workable Czech word processor will want such a thing as soon as possible, which SuSE has provided. They will then do the right thing and open it as soon as possible afterward.
If they were trying to be another M$ they would try to keep it to themselves, not be setting a schedule to give it away.
The most logical explanation I can think of is that of making sure all of the code is legitimate for free use before allowing such free use.
There is a civil war coming in the United States. Remember which side has most of the guns
First, a premise:
making money out of Free software is a bit harder that making money out of closed software: in the first case one can sell additional services (i.e. maintenace, ad hoc customizations, etc.), while in the latter one can also sell the use of the software in itself (because the sources are not available for one to compile and use them, or not legally usable/alterable/redistributable).
That said, could time-shifting be considered as a "service"?
Example: Joe spent some effort developing a nice application for which there could be some market space. Although Joe has no obligation problems to release it under a Free license (i.e. the libraries and the tools he used don't legally force him to release his code under a Free licence), Joe decide to sell its application as proprietary software, with the perspective of releasing the source with a Free license in (say) six months.
This would give Joe enough time to earn some money, and perhaps would please the Free software community because the software will be released under a Free license (let's assume that Joe keeps its promises).
Basically, Joe says "If you want it now and you are not interested in the source, please pay me. Otherwise, wait six months when you'll have everything Free for free".
My question is: would this be considered acceptable by the community? Instead of paying to "have the ability to use it in proprietary software", you'd pay it "to have it now". For some aspects, it's similar to the way Aladdin manages GhostScript, if I remember correctly.
(note: no, I'm not planning to do it this way, since I haven't such a "killer app", and if I had, I'd probably release it as Free software from the start, but I'd like an opinion on that).
to be pedantic i would like to point out that RedHat does have a priority ftp site (for customers paying support) where updated packages appear 1-2 weeks before the public ftp servers. but this is a minor thing, and i agree that RedHat has a very good attitude :-)
That's ridiculous! I'm sure no copyright court would consider menu prompts and little sentences explaining what a dialog does as containing any significant expressive content, and therefore copyright law does not apply, and therefore the GPL would not apply, even if they had started with the GPL version, which they didn't.
... but the law is often not as reasonable as one would expect...
If that is true, then the same may be said of Suse's restrictive license. Put another way, "I'm sure no copyright court would consider menu prompts and little sentences explaining what a dialog does as containing any significant expressive content, and therefore copyright law does not apply, and therefore Suse's license would not apply, even if they had started with Sun's proprietary version, which they did."
However, what is relevant IMO is that copyright law forbids the copyright owner from determining how the user can use their product once they have legally acquired a copy of it. Therefore, I can use their localisation on Windows, because their licence is invalid under international copyright law.
Another interesting point. Two strikes against the enforceability of this license (if true).
BTW, IANAL
Me either. Any lawyers care to step up to the plate and confirm or refute these notions? What PhilHibbs says appears reasonable on the face of it
If however Suse's license really is unenforceably it would be nice to get that out in the open as soon as possible, so that those in the Czech Republic have more freedom of choice sooner rather than later.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
do you guys (and gals, don't want to be sexist) actually pay attention to such licensing issues? This is one of the reasons I'm not too excited about using Linux. I have better things to do with my time than worry about some licensing agreement....
---
DO NOT DISTURB THE SE
I'm guessing they are not trying to work against users so much as trying to prevent rival for-profit distributions from including their hard work in non-Suse distributions. Star Office is one of the herd of dual-licensed "open source" projects. I am not going to wade through the Sun not-quite-GPL license, but I'm sure this is the license Suse is taking advantage of, since the GPL would seem to forbid this sort of restriction. Personally, all of these attempts to one-up the competition in the race to become THE Linux just make me want to send donations earmarked for Debian to SPI.
I do not have a signature
false assumptions detected.
SuSE is not a small player here in Europe (where localization matters, which was what SuSE got its start from). Expect the czech market to change radically in their favour if this works out the way they planned.
Mebbe its also a matter of testing grounds for marketing techniques they could use when the situation returns.
THIS MATTERS!
Kiwaiti
Member of the Legion Of Microsoft Haters
I wonder how well the discriminatory licensing (Slackware, Debian are allowed to use the mods in March, the rest in April) would hold in court. Of course, I don't know Czech law, but I would have serious doubts under German law: Sec. 826 of the civil code forbids unfair business practices and one could argue that preferring some distros over others is unfair. Then again, the time frame is has been chosen in such a way that this licence is unlikely to be tested in court. Still, this is setting a disturbing precedent.
Um, clarification:
I went to spain in 92, italy and austria in 98, from 98-2000,
I went abroad to Israel for two years, returned to the states with the Israeli who became my wife. All my travels and experiences were very valuable, and taught me to value America, something I didn't give much thought to before living elsewhere.
A host is a host from coast to coast, but no one uses a host that's close
You know, you're right, this thread is a shameful mess.
When I first contributed to it , I didn't mean for it to end with this outcome.
It seems to me that far too many shortsighted people accuse others of being nazis and or communists on slashdot, which only shows their ignorance culturally as well as historically.
read my addition to this thread earlier where I try and establish that I'm not a limited ignorant shortsighted American, or at least, not in this context. (ignorance is a hard thing to claim a complete lack of; my perl skills stink.)
Hopefully next time we post in the same thread it won't be on something as disgraceful as this.
A host is a host from coast to coast, but no one uses a host that's close