OK, to continue..... you are correct that permission is required.
The YaST licence does not forbid resale : it merely requires written permission from SuSE in order to sell it.
quote ( from http://www.suse.de/en/private/support/licenses/yas t.html ):
" It is forbidden to reproduce or distribute data carriers which have been reproduced without authorisation for payment without the prior written consent of SuSE Linux AG or SuSE Linux. "
This says to me that, by the documented terms of the licence, if you ask, you can sell YaST licenced code.
The FSF's interpretation of this is ( at http://www.fsf.org/licenses/license-list.html ):-
" The YaST License
This is not a free software license. The license prohibits distribution for a fee, and that makes it impossible for the software to be included in the many CD-ROM free software collections that are sold by companies and by organizations such as the FSF. "
hmmmmm.
I do not see how the first para form the YaST licencecan be interpreted as the second para : the interpretation of the FSF seems to be inaccurate, and thus this causes undue alarm.
YaST does not fulfill the full definition of FSF free software ( by dint of the requirement of written permission to redistribute ), but is not represented correctly either : the YaST licence is not as draconian as many would believe it to be.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, to continue ..... you are correct that permission is required.
s t.html ) :
The YaST licence does not forbid resale : it merely requires written permission from SuSE in order to sell it.
quote ( from http://www.suse.de/en/private/support/licenses/ya
" It is forbidden to reproduce or distribute data carriers which have been reproduced without authorisation for payment without the prior written consent of SuSE Linux AG or SuSE Linux. "
This says to me that, by the documented terms of the licence, if you ask, you can sell YaST licenced code.
The FSF's interpretation of this is ( at http://www.fsf.org/licenses/license-list.html ):-
" The YaST License
This is not a free software license. The license prohibits distribution for a fee, and that makes it impossible for the software to be included in the many CD-ROM free software collections that are sold by companies and by organizations such as the FSF. "
hmmmmm.
I do not see how the first para form the YaST licencecan be interpreted as the second para : the interpretation of the FSF seems to be inaccurate, and thus this causes undue alarm.
YaST does not fulfill the full definition of FSF free software ( by dint of the requirement of written permission to redistribute ), but is not represented correctly either : the YaST licence is not as draconian as many would believe it to be.
I would point out that SuSE delivers both open source and free code. YaST is both open source and free.
The charge made for products is to provide support and maitenance for users.
YaST is not, at this point, GPL'd and does indeed have the restrictions noted in another append here.
Can we move on from this misrepresentation of YaST as being closed and proprietary