Slashdot Mirror
SuSE Denies UnitedLinux Per-Seat License Model
m0RpHeus writes "According to Linux Today, SuSE is denying per seat licensing for United Linux. `We really don't plan any per-seat licensing for UnitedLinux,' said SuSE's US Director of Sales Holger Dyroff. UnitedLinux, it seems is divided on this issue."
This doesn't seem to be going very well. Is it me, or does any sort of combined Linux effort seem doomed to die on the rocks of licensing issues? When you have gangs of people obsessed with ephemeral issues, it's easy to get stuck on them forever.
There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
Max V.
NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
Seems that UnitedLinux is already divided.
per-seat licensing
:)
Don't sit down while using it, remove the seats from the pc room, and you're done!
667 The Neighbour of the Beast
I'm serious.
SuSE, with UnitedLinux, had an innovative idea for selling Linux. They are within their legal bounds, and I see nothing wrong with a company taking full advantage of the GPL.
I guess this is just one more Linux company that's headed for the scrap heap. If they could have gained some respectability among business (which seemed to be their plan) they might have been able to earn money and succeed.
And really, who better than SuSE to lead the next wave of the revolution? Ah well... *sigh*
Dragging people kicking and screaming into reality since 1996.
So many jokes to make and I can't seem to think of a great one.
So make your own...
UnitedLinux ______divided_______________!
Get your Unix fortune now!
I wonder if SuSe obtained the permission of the UL team members to issue this statement. If not, sounds like the UnitedLinux project has some communication problems at the least, and possibly some larger problems looming on the horizon.
I know if I had issued a statement like this without consulting my team members first that there would be hell to pay, but we'll see.
Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
As I said in a post to the previous related slashdot discussion; Ransom Love doesn't understand Open Source PR. His mouth gets the Open Source community to hate him each time he opens it in public. Different spin on his previous "no binaries!" comment and nobody would be upset.
Ransom Love does not understand Open Source PR, and it would be better for everyone if he were not so press-hungry. SUSE has a much better spin on essentially the same facts, and understand the Open Source community is not just a place to leech code from in order to turn a buck. SUSE understands to give/take relationship, Calera, specifically Rasom Love doesn't get it.
Next time you read a quote from Ransom love, understand two things:
1. He doesn't speak for his partners (SUSE/Turbo Linux in this case), even though he will make is sound like he is.
2. He doesn't understand Open Source PR and will be needlessly sticking his foot in his mouth...that's just what he does.
-Pete
Soccer Goal Plans
Here's the Google Cache
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14
UnitedLinux is the base distro. Suse, Caldera, etc. are going to be *basing* their distro on that. They are not going to release a UnitedLinux distro. They will release a distro, "Powered by UnitedLinux. Each company can decide their licensing terms themselves.
If Caldera wants to put some extra propritary software in their distro and use per seat licensing, then they are free to do that. Suse has just said that they will not be doing that.
UnitedLinux is IMHO a good thing! They are using and selling free software - they aren't breaking any licenses or anything like that. They are *the good guys* trying to earn a bit of money to stay in business. Is that such a bad thing?
Okay, maybe someone pointed this out already, but how is this divided? UnitedLinux is NOT ONE distribution. It's a standard base that several distros will be based on. Just because Caldera doesn't understand the market and wants to compete with Red Hat using per seat licenses doesn't mean that SuSE, TurboLinux, Conectiva, and any others who join in the future have to follow this madness. They will STILL be SEPERATE distributions each with their own licenses and quirks. They'll just have some common components that will allow interoperability. This wouldn't be news if so many people would just quit jumping to conclusions about this project before much information is available.
Who said Freedom was Fair?
It's funny to see the different approaches of Linux distributors to solve the issue "how to make money with a free product".
Red Hat bases everything on their strong image and the fact that they are #1. They base most their business on services while remaining very open-source-spirit oriented.
MandrakeSoft, which more and more appears to be now #2 in term of installed user base, is the biggest defender of Free Software after Debian. They sell boxes, and start to offer business-orieted services such as Red Hat does, but they also had a great idea: they offer extra services to their users (individuals & enterprises) with the Mandrake Club which provides them many subscriptions and a good income.
SuSE, Caldera, TurboLinux... Their deep wish would actually be sell their products "a la Microsoft" with one license per seat, without providing ISO images and so on. They actually have a very "proprietary" ideal, so they try to offer a not too bad image to the Linux community while acting against its ideals in reality.
In my opinion, Red Hat is lucky because they can stay open and make real business, MandrakeSoft is *extremely* innovative in inventing a real business model for Free Software while being a fervent defender of its rules. And SuSE, Caldera... didn't understand anything to Linux/Free Software and are going to be banned by the Linux community, and see their revenues decrease.
This has nothing to do with the UnitedLinux Group being 'divided.' If you would actually READ their website, you'd understand that they are still SEPERATE companies and will still have SEPERATE products each with their own licenses and 'added value' content. The amount of FUD being spread about this project before it even really starts simply amazes me. Can we at least wait until there is actually a product out before passing judgement? Most of the bad press has nothing to do with SuSE, TurboLinux, or Conectiva, but is instead based on Caldera's plans. Don't mix up Ransom Love's messed up business ideas for the UnitedLinux business plan. They're seperate.
Who said Freedom was Fair?
Divided, yes. LSB standard is not standard for Complete Linux distribution, it's more a set of needs to be LSB compliant >> gcc, kernel, xfree.
Have a lower layer defined and upper layer will get more uniform as it was. Every
Any company can extend LSB to its own potential, main thing is that basic layer defined by LSB stays the same.
Same as puting gnome in LSB, YES you can. Being LSB compatible means being LSB compatible.
Read LSB specs and then after that you'll see where you got it wrong. Also read pdf on UL site, you'll realize that they already inteded to make separated distributions. LSB does never defines per-seat licensing. Per-seat licensing is company choice. example Lindows
It should be useful for people to realise that united linux (all 4 companys) is just the first one to accept LSB standard. They don't define what LSB standard is. So instead of "United Linux compatible", "LSB v.X.x compatible" would be more preffered and acceptable.
Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
Per-seat licensing of a Linux product seems like an obvious marketing suicide attempt. As an admin, one of the big attractions of Linux is freedom from licensing worries. Given the easy licensing optiona available from Red Hat, Debian, et al., I think a United Linux-based distro would have to offer some unbelievable added value in their distro to get me to buy it.
OK, I took a week or so off for a vacation and seem to have walked into a new firestorm of information here. I have read most of the UnitedLinux articles referenced at Slashdot and am still somewhat in the dark here.
;-)
Can someone tell me what the *intended*aim* of UnitedLinux:
1. To provide a standard "base Linux" to compete with RedHat?
2. To provide a single Linux to be distributed by all members?
3. To provide a single group for all communication/development outside of sales?
4. To provide a single face for customers (i.e. only marketting)?
It sounds like others in this thread are similarly confused. Course, that may be because the members of "United Linux" are a little confused on the aim themselves.
I humbly await enlightenment.
But, why should support cost more if your mail server supports 5 users or 5000 users
Because having support for a 5000 user system is more valuable, so people will pay more.
Because a 5000 user system is more complicated, or at least larger. More to go wrong, higher likliehood, not as easy to recover.
I believe the per seat licensing refers to computers with UL installed, not the number of clients connected to a server.
The official line from the FSF is that the "correct" way to make money off of free software is by charging for the services surrounding it. That used to include charging someone to install and configure systems. Isn't that what YaST does?
It's starting to seem like all the "services" that can be profitably charged for can eventually be automated. Once these services become programs, suddenly it's no longer OK to charge for them.
If the FSF got its wish and non-free software could never be shipped or used alongside Free software, the companies charging for services would have no incentive to automate these services. One of the selling points of Free software is that it doesn't require as much service. Barring non-free software from working with Free software provides a disincentive to automation.
Nope, no sig
Look at the contributors-- Caldera, Conectiva, Turbolinux, and SuSE. Of these contributors, Caldera seems to see per seat licensing currently as part of its revenue plan, while the other companies are ones that live off OEM contracts and consulting fees.
It is not at all surprising that Caldera would want per-seat licensing while the other ones would not. But look at it this way-- if UnitedLinux is to do well, it must be able to compete on the low and high ends and this means that per-seat licensing is a bad idea (but per-seat support contracts, OTOH, are a really good idea).
My suspicion is that per-seat licensing will not happen with United Linux, and that Caldera will either drop out, go out of business, or change their business model.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
SuSE, Caldera, TurboLinux... Their deep wish would actually be sell their products "a la Microsoft" with one license per seat, without providing ISO images and so on. They actually have a very "proprietary" ideal, so they try to offer a not too bad image to the Linux community while acting against its ideals in reality.
I don't work for SuSe but consider it rather slanderous (or is that libelous) for you to claim that they are trying to get a free ride out of the Linux community and usurp the GPL by being proprietary when they have explicitly stated that this is not the case. I can believe that Caldera would be in support of per seat licensing since this doesn't differ much from how Ransom Love has described his business plans but to simply paint other companies that contribute to the Open Source community with the same brush because they want to provide a Linux Standard is extremely unkind.
In my opinion, Red Hat is lucky because they can stay open and make real business, MandrakeSoft is *extremely* innovative in inventing a real business model for Free Software while being a fervent defender of its rules. And SuSE, Caldera... didn't understand anything to Linux/Free Software and are going to be banned by the Linux community, and see their revenues decrease.
It is rather sad that such a glorified troll is currently rated +5. All the companies you mention are trying to make money while giving you Free Software. Quite frankly, people like you are the ones that give Slashdot a bad name and make it seem like the Open Source community is a bunch of unfriendly freeloaders.
By the way, most reckonings indicate that MandrakeSoft is just barely doing well and although Red Hat's financials are good, they are one of the few software-based company to be able to make a living off of Free Software. Even then they've been on the ropes a bit, I don't see why people should begrudge others for trying to find a way to provide Free Software and still make a living or is it that you'd prefer that all the companies you just besmirched created proprietary software?
How to create a profitable business from Free Software is still a black art and in many cases may be impossible but while we are still trying to figure that out I don't think that it is fair to malign the people who are simply trying to make a living while contributing to Free Software.
OSF, the Sequel.
I started out meaning for this to be funny, but I was on the battlefield during the System-V versus OSF wars. It was an ugly war with massive civilian casualities. In the end, both sides annihilated each other and paved the way for a non-combatant to rule the world. I expect more of the same from this virtual replay. Too bad; it would have been better for everyone if this alliance had never happened.
Where has anyone acually involved in the UnitedLinux project actually said that there will be a per-seat license?!? All I've seen is a somewhat vague statement in the UnitedLinux FAQ which could be interpreted as allowing for the possibility that there might be a few UnitedLinux distros using a somewhat non-standard license. Somebody mentioned it on /. wondering what they meant by it, and the Chicken Littles around here latched on to it a cried that the sky is falling. RMS heard the screams and, without bothering to check if the sky was actually comming down, issued forth his opinion on the matter. Apparantly the /. editors haven't bothered to look up either, since they keep posting stories about this totally unsubstantiated rumor!
The fact that not a single one of these stories or opinions has been able to find a quote which substantiates this rumor is quite telling.
Sure, Ransom Love is an idiot, but come on people! He already got smacked down for per-seat licensing once, is he really dumb enough to try it again? Are the rest of UnitedLinux dumb enough to go along with such a stupid idea after seeing what happened to Caldera? I very much doubt that. Obviously SuSE isn't, and I'd be very surprised if Connectiva or TurboLinux where even giving the idea consideration.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
Merging free-software and proprietary software is already a shame, but here we are a step higher!
You may be confusing "proprietary" software and "commercial" software. There's nothing wrong with selling free software. Just look at the fsf's category list.
t'nera semordnilap
What would a per-seat GPL look like, anyway?
--Blair
A sports analogy:
United Linux is like the bottom 4 teams in a league combining forces to take on the champions. (Basically you have the best of the worst taking on the winners.)
The last thing businesses want to do is continually reinstall new distributions all of the time in order to get the new versions of applications -- imagine in the MS world having (or perceivably having) to upgrade from Win98 to Windows 2000 to use Office2000 or the new Windows Media player --- etc, etc. I think the big winner (functionally) will be the distribution that ends the need (or perceived need) to constantly have to install new distributions every 6 months -- just to get the upgraded applications. I would like to see the ability to easily go from say KDE 2 to KDE 3 from within a distribution without having to upgrade to a new point release distribution. I know that you can go to KDE's site and go through RPM hell to manually upgrade the RPMS's one at a time -- or you can add a "special" line in your sources.lst file in some cases to get new versions in the Debian world -- or you can use the source and compile yourself, but we are talking about my Mom and Grandma here...
The only time someone should have to go through a full reinstall of the whole ball of wax should be every few years. Not every 6 months. It should be easy to keep applications up to date or on the bleeding edge -- without compromising or reinstalling the base distribution.
(+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
Has United Linux been developed?
I understand they are trying to get momentum for this distro, before its released. However it seems that they are getting more negative press than they can chew. Hype can't carry a company's product as well as it could 2-4 years ago.
"It takes many nails to build a crib, but one screw to fill it."
I was quoted a bit out of context in this article. Here are the full statements that I recall making, that were quoted only in part:
and: I just wanted to clarify the statements, because I don't believe they were as sensational as the article makes them out to be.