Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

OpenSUSE 11.1 License Changes Examined

Posted by kdawson on from the clear-and-simple dept.

nerdyH writes "Novell's recent openSUSE 11.1 release includes a new end-user license agreement modeled after Fedora's EULA, says Community Manager Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier in this detailed interview. Zonker says distributions should apply the 'open source principle' and standardize trademark agreements and EULA, similar to how the OSI sought to reduce open source license proliferation a few years back. But with Fedora and openSUSE being so different, can one size really fit all? And, will open source licenses ever finally get translated into languages besides English? (Zonker says that translation into 7 languages was done for openSUSE 11.1.)"

13 of 90 comments (clear)

  1. Languages other than English? by Syrente · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And, will open source licenses ever finally get translated into languages besides English?"

    (Zonker says that translation into 7 languages was done for openSUSE 11.1.)

    Well, unless those seven languages are English, English, English, English, English, English and English, then I'd think it's safe to assume so.

    1. Re:Languages other than English? by digitig · · Score: 4, Funny

      And, will open source licenses ever finally get translated into languages besides English?"

      (Zonker says that translation into 7 languages was done for openSUSE 11.1.)

      Well, unless those seven languages are English, English, English, English, English, English and English, then I'd think it's safe to assume so.

      Maybe:

      • English (Australia)
      • English (Belize)
      • English (Carribean)
      • English (Hong Kong)
      • English (India)
      • English (Indonesia)
      • English (Ireland)
      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    2. Re:Languages other than English? by jabithew · · Score: 4, Informative

      Another problem is, if the license is in several languages, and there is a discrepancy, one language must take primacy. See the case with the Irish constitution.

      --
      All intents and purposes. Not intensive purposes.
    3. Re:Languages other than English? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      In fact, the languages are:
      English (US)
      French
      German
      Italian
      Japanese
      Portugese (Brazilian)
      Simplified Chinese
      Spanish
      Traditional Chinese.

    4. Re:Languages other than English? by Hal+The+Computer · · Score: 5, Informative

      Another problem is, if the license is in several languages, and there is a discrepancy, one language must take primacy. See the case with the Irish constitution.

      Which is of course wrong. Just because it's the way you do it doesn't mean it's the only way.

      The constitution of Canada, and all Canadian federal laws, are equally authentic in either French or English. There are some really fun rules of statutory interpretation which end up meaning that you have to read both texts and figure out their common meaning.

      --

      int main(void){int x=01232;while(malloc(x));return x;}
  2. Only English available? by Vertana · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They say that it has been translated into 7 languages in TFA, however, they provide an HTML link for the Deutsch version. Why are they not available on the installer? What good does a license do if it's not available to be viewed at install time? And if it's not available on the installer, then the time that someone took to translate that license into another language was for nothing.

    --
    "The best way to accelerate a Macintosh is at 9.8m/sec^2" -Marcus Dolengo
    1. Re:Only English available? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Informative
      The translated licenses are informational at best and wrong at worst. If you translate the GPL (for example), then you will end up with something that is not saying exactly the same thing as the GPL, and so you do not have the right to redistribute the code with the new license unless the copyright owner agrees to dual-license it under the translation.

      As for EULAs, they already are standardised. If the end user needs a license, then it fails the Free Software definition at freedom 0 (the freedom to use the software for any purpose) and the OSI's definition. It is not Free Software, and it is not Open Source Software. One of the main attractions of F/OSS is that it makes accounting much easier, because you can not be in violation of the license unless you distribute it. Add an end user license agreement, and this advantage goes away - even if it's permissive, you still need to get your legal department to check it and agree. With a F/OSS license, legal don't need to go near it unless you are producing derived works or distributing the code.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  3. Re:I gave up with Suse by houghi · · Score: 5, Informative

    Well, that is because there are no x.0 products. All products are just a follow up on the previous one. The x.0 does not exist in the way it exists in numbering with software packages.

    11.0 could have easily been named 10.4 and be identical, except for the naming. 11.1 could have been named 10.5 or 7.15 or 3.1415 (or whatever)
    There is NO relevance to a release x.0, except that is vaguely is the version that usually is the version before a SLE release, although this is not a fixed truth.

    So you must have never used even S.u.S.E. or SuSE or SUSE, because this has been the case since forever.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  4. Re:English is the universal language! by RotateLeftByte · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It may piss off the French ATC to have to speak english to an Air France Pilot but at least all the other planes in the air can understand the instructions being given. A standard language is essential in this case for Passenger safety.

    --
    I'd rather be riding my '63 Triumph T120.
  5. Re:And this means what ? by houghi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Luckily you gave the answer yourself. No. Read the licenses and it will become clear.
    Novell put YaST under GPL. It openend up the development of the distro. It made available their Build Service. It gave tools to remove trademarks and the ability to make your own distribution. (somethink like CentOS is pretty easy to do with openSUSE)

    It stopped the time difference of availablity of boxed set and downloadable version. It gives a lot of time and people to coding directly.

    Yet when Novell does something, it must be evil.

    I am still waiting on the collaps of Linux after the Novell/Microsoft deal. All that I see is that Novell giot a load of money from Microsoft and Novell keeps going on fighting for OSS all the way to court.

    The sole reason the license has been changed is because thay want to put their money where their mouth is. I know they are interested in even better ways to do this, so if you have an idea, do not hesitate to tell them. If youi have a good case with a good explanation, they will listen. (That does not mean they will do what you sugest)

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  6. EULA what the fuck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    EULA means End-user License Agreement.
    Why the fuck should I as a end-user have to agree to an EULA?
    Free software is copyrighted, and copyright is for distribution not for use.
    EULA covers use.
    Why the fuck should I have to agree to something just to use it? It should hamper my freedoms?

    Man fuck that. OpenSUSE? So much for open.
    EULA is something you expect from proprietary software, not from free open source software.

    Fuck that shit.

  7. Re:I gave up with Suse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    pi rounds to 3.1416

    TeX's versioning is done by adding one more digit of pi so that the version number becomes more accurate with each upgrade.

    Your nerd card revoking card is hereby revoked.

  8. Re:English is the universal language! by FlyingGuy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You sir are completely and utterly wrong. The government was right, and your bunch of little "It eez our right to speek zee language we love" assholes were wrong as well.

    Yes sir, I am a pilot, I communicate with ATC a lot. I have caught ATC mistakes because I can understand the instructions given to other pilots. As only one of many other examples: I am on final, outer marker, 130 kts, dirty. When I hear the Tower say, "N-xxxxx position and hold, runway 28R". Hold the phone, that is the runway I am landing on! Now if that is not bad enough the next thing I hear, "N-xxxxx cleared for takeoff". To say the least I start screaming at ATC ( in english ) and we sort it out.

    Now if the tower controller had been speaking French to a French speaking pilot I doubt I would be sitting here writing this. The reason people who direct machines that are carrying human beings in the air speak a common language is so we don't get killed. But I guess you folks in Quebec don't give a shit about that, now do you.

    Now in the context of EULA's I think they should be translated into all possible languages. Why? Because it is not a safety issue!

    --
    Hey KID! Yeah you, get the fuck off my lawn!