Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

OpenSUSE's EULAs vs. Free Software Ideals

Posted by timothy on from the naughty-naughty-lawyers dept.

Anonymous Coward Maximus writes with some interesting (and disheartening) bits found in recent EULAs from SUSE: "Apparently the Beta came/comes with an interesting EULA discussed in this Planète Béranger article that just makes me think where is this whole Novell/Microsoft ridiculousness going to end? One quote from the EULA to whet your appetite: 'The Software may contain an automatic disabling mechanism that prevents its use after a certain period of time, so You should back up Your system and take other measures to prevent any loss of files or data.' Hmmm... Here is the full Beta 3 EULA for you to dissect. Note that the final release has a different EULA that doesn't look that scary, but still mentions things like 'You acquire only a license to use the Software' and such." Personally, I find the "Benchmark Testing" section (under GENERAL TERMS in the final release's EULA) to be pretty irksome.

2 of 59 comments (clear)

  1. The EULAs are for different products. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The beta is from openSUSE (the non-oss version) ( http://lwn.net/Articles/283566/ )
    The actual follow-on one is from the non-oss version of openSUSE ( http://ftp.nluug.nl/os/Linux/distr/opensuse/distribution/11.0/repo/non-oss/EULA.txt )
    The one referenced is for the oss version for openSUSE ( http://ftp.nluug.nl/os/Linux/distr/opensuse/distribution/11.0/repo/oss/EULA.txt )

    I will leave it as an exercise for the read to determine if it is actually an evil conspiracy or not.

  2. Pure slashfud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    This submission is complete bullshit and I'm disappointed that it even is on the front page. This is a clear case of someone who doesn't understand the EULA misinterpreting its contents for dramatic effect. The section on benchmarking isn't at all insidious. Let's quote it verbatim:

    Benchmark Testing.
    This benchmark testing restriction applies to You if You
    are a software vendor or if You are performing testing on the Software at
    the direction of or on behalf of a software vendor. You may not, without
    Novell's prior written consent not to be unreasonably withheld, publish or
    disclose to any third party the results of any benchmark test of the
    Software. If You are a vendor of products that are functionally similar to
    or compete with the Software ("Similar Products"), or are acting on behalf
    of such a vendor, and You publish or disclose benchmark information on the
    Software in violation of this restriction, then notwithstanding anything to
    the contrary in the Similar Product's end user license agreement, and in
    addition to any other remedies Novell may have, Novell shall have the right
    to perform enchmark testing on Similar Products and to disclose and publish
    that benchmark information and You hereby represent that You have authority
    to grant such right to Novell.

    Anyone who can actually be bothered to read this sees that all Novell is doing is ensuring that they have the right to make their own benchmarks if some software vendor decides to benchmark Novells products against their own. This isn't diabolical at all.

    Also, as for the 'You acquire only a license to use the Software' quote, let's look at that in context:

    OWNERSHIP RIGHTS
    No title to or ownership of the Software is transferred to You. Novell and/or its licensors owns and retains all title and ownership of all
    intellectual property rights in the Software, including any adaptations or
    copies. You acquire only a license to use the Software.

    If you read that statement in context, instead of quoting it out of context for dramatic effect, you see that it makes perfect sense. Novell is saying that you don't own openSUSE or any of the other branded software they're giving you. They are using legal language to protect their ownership of their brand. This is not unusual and is just common sense. I can already hear some of you saying that this language must mean that Novell is violating the GPL and by not allowing redistribution. Anyone thinking of engaging in such a rant needs to read this before they make a fool of themselves:

    The Software is a modular operating system comprised of numerous components that may be accompanied by separate license terms. The Software is a collective work of Novell; although Novell does not own the copyright to every component of the Software, Novell owns the collective work copyright for the Software. Most of the components are open source packages, and most of the components are neither developed nor owned by Novell. Your license rights with respect to individual components accompanied by separate license terms are defined by those terms; nothing in this agreement shall restrict, limit, or otherwise affect any rights or obligations You may have, or conditions to which You may be subject, under such license terms; however, if You distribute copies of any component independent of the Software, You must remove all Novell trademarks, trade dress, and logos from each copy.

    You may make and use unlimited copies of the Software within your
    Organization. With respect to any version containing the letters "OSS" in
    the product name, whereby the product name is
    defined in first line of this Agreement, You
    may make and distribute unlimited copies of the Software outside Your
    organization. You may make and distribute unlimited modified copies outside
    Your organization provided You remove all Novell trademarks, trade dress,
    and logos from each modified copy of the Software. The term "Orga