Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

OpenSUSE 11.1 License Changes Examined

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the clear-and-simple dept.

SuSE 90

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.)"

cancel ×

90 comments

I gave up with Suse (0, Troll)

JamesRose (1062530) | more than 5 years ago | (#26222327)

When they started releasing .0 products at the same level that microsoft releases them.

Re:I gave up with Suse (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26222555)

That's probably part of their evil interoperability scam, you see. Nevermind the GPL.

Re:I gave up with Suse (5, Informative)

houghi (78078) | more than 5 years ago | (#26222609)

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.

Re:I gave up with Suse (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26223013)

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.

That's not really true. 10.4 would have all the same old versions of things (e.g. ssh) with even more patches applied by SuSE, along with the old kernel, patched up the wahzoo.

11.0 has a new kernel, additional things that weren't in 10.x, and newer versions of most everything else, and the patching starts anew.

It's arguable whether the old versions, plus all the SuSE applied patches, are equivalent to the newer version or not.

Re:I gave up with Suse (1)

Anarke_Incarnate (733529) | more than 5 years ago | (#26223809)

That is not how it works in the opensuse world. You must be confusing the F/OSS distributions with their enterprise counterparts.

Re:I gave up with Suse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26225985)

>11.0 has a new kernel, additional things that weren't in 10.x, and newer versions of most everything else, and the patching starts anew.

By that argument, 11.1 should have been 12.0. (It has a new kernel, openssh also went from 5.0 to 5.1, KDE4 is not ...that much... beta anymore, need more?)

Re:I gave up with Suse (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26223297)

11.1 could have been named 10.5 or 7.15 or 3.1415 (or whatever)

pi rounds to 3.1416. Nerd card revoked.

Re:I gave up with Suse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26223339)

That's why I use 3.14159 instead.

Kinda like having an amp that goes to 11.

Re:I gave up with Suse (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26223529)

pi rounds to 3.1416

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

Your nerd card revoking card is hereby revoked.

Re:I gave up with Suse (1)

jvollmer (456588) | more than 4 years ago | (#26225705)

>pi rounds to 3.1416. Nerd card revoked.

Oh, Man! You're using PI version 3.1416? I couldn't get version 3.1416 to build on my box, so I'm stuck using version 2.

If it's not Consolidated Lint, it's just fuzz!

Re:I gave up with Suse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26226049)

When they started releasing .0 products at the same level that microsoft releases them.

OK, I'll bite: Which definition of level [google.com] did you intend here? The sentence is basically nonsensical regardless of the one you choose, however. Why you got modded Insightful I'll never understand.

English is the universal language! (3, Funny)

erroneus (253617) | more than 5 years ago | (#26222389)

Even space aliens on the movies speak English unless they lack the proper throat devices to speak the language. Every time I see someone write or hear someone speak in a language other than English, I believe they are saying things about me that I don't understand and I hate that! So to hell with all other languages but not English because it is the best one.

(yes, of course I'm kidding)

Re:English is the universal language! (2, Funny)

Cornwallis (1188489) | more than 5 years ago | (#26222447)

Air traffic controllers worldwide use English as an ersatz standard in order to prevent confusion (especially important when stress levels are high in the cockpit). Perhaps this thinking makes sense for EULAs as well.

Re:English is the universal language! (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26222575)

Actually, it's not an 'ersatz' standard, it's required that all communicants be able to work in either the local airport language or English. 'Local language' makes life difficult in India (too many) so they use English. And any pilot can force a french atc to speak english... Pisses 'em off royally.

Re:English is the universal language! (4, Insightful)

RotateLeftByte (797477) | more than 5 years ago | (#26222693)

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.

Re:English is the universal language! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26223405)

Bollocks!

That's the kind of arrogance that we've been fighting in Quebec for so long. Air controllers have fought a battle in 1975-76 for the right of french air controllers and pilots to speak french between themselves.
The canadian government forbade this on the bogus argument of safety. (Yeah right... two francophones forced to speak english between them... makes me feel safer)
The air controllers fought and won... They proved that the safety argument was unfounded.
Actually it end up improving safety by setting up a clear contact protocol and standardizing the terms used in communication.
Anyway, I'm always amazed at how people submit to cultural imperialism... in the name of safety, simplicity, cost cutting or whatever bogus reason they give... just pathetic...

Re:English is the universal language! (5, Insightful)

FlyingGuy (989135) | more than 5 years ago | (#26223799)

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!

Re:English is the universal language! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26224469)

Sir,

Your contempt is duly noted. I understand your point of view, but as an english-only speaker you should understand that flying by in foreign airspace there is always an added risk to due miscommunication... When english is the second language of an air controller or a pilot there is always an added risk, several accidents have happened in the past because of this. But pilots and air controller accept this because they have no other choice for communicating...

However why take this risk when both the pilots and air controller have full command of the same language which is not english ? This would be true here particularly in the case of a regional flight. Why take an additional risk ?

Have you ever fly in russian, french or south american airspace ?

Thank you for your so great consideration of the Quebec people. I really wish you do not enter our airspace...

Re:English is the universal language! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26224697)

but as an english-only speaker you should understand that flying by in foreign airspace there is always an added risk to due miscommunication... When english is the second language of an air controller or a pilot there is always an added risk

The job of a pilot is to fly the aircraft, often into non-english speaking places. What's easier? To hire enough pilots that speak the language of every country they are expected to fly into and to work around the scheduling so that pilots are limited to international routes where they speak the languages of the countries they are leaving from or the countries they are going to, or to require PERFECT GODDAMN FLUENCY of english (or another language, just pick one) by every pilot and every ATC?

An english-speaking pilot flying to france being forced to understand french with less-than-perfect fluency is just as dangerous as the situations you described.

both the pilots and air controller have full command of the same language which is not english ?

If they don't have full command of english, they shouldn't have been hired for that job.

Thank you for your so great consideration of the Quebec people. I really wish you do not enter our airspace...

I would be more than glad to stay way if you agree to keep all your french-speaking pilots away from the rest of the world.

This was already answered (2, Insightful)

patiodragon (920102) | more than 4 years ago | (#26225685)

"However why take this risk when both the pilots and air controller have full command of the same language which is not english ? This would be true here particularly in the case of a regional flight. Why take an additional risk ?"

So that the pilots from India, Russia, Czech Republic, Morocco, Spain, Portugal, etc. know what the hell is going on at the airport. Wasn't that clear enough from the example given?

Re:English is the universal language! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26226961)

I speak English as a second langauge and I despise those who do not speak english in CTAF or other radio calls, it's dangerous and counter-productive. Anyone thinking otherwise shouldn't be flying, stop thinking your langauge is superior and get on with flying. In my country a langauge test is given to new pilots who speak english as a second langauge, to try to make sure they can actually speak it, if you fail you are unable to get your CPL. English in Aviation is an Internation Standard, deal with it.

Re:English is the universal language! (1)

Elektroschock (659467) | more than 5 years ago | (#26229361)

Well, anyway, I could be French as well.

Re:English is the universal language! (0, Troll)

theillien2 (1426175) | more than 4 years ago | (#26224059)

Ah, good ol' Quebecois...neé, Francois...arrogance thinking that they are above it all and are entitled to so much more than the rest of the world. Heaven forbid they recognize their place of equality amongst the rest of the world. It's no wonder you folks are the butt of so many jokes.

Re:English is the universal language! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26225675)

I like that they think they're a country.

Re:English is the universal language! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26225745)

I like that they think they're people.

Re:English is the universal language! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26237301)

I like that the Quebecois think that the francophone world view them as anything other than the worthless redneck, inbred lazy fuckoffs they are.

Re:English is the universal language! (2, Insightful)

dubbreak (623656) | more than 4 years ago | (#26224251)

So if the standard language was, say, esperanto and all ATC and pilots had to speak it would the francophones have still been up in arms? I doubt it.

In my experience french speaking french Canadians have a knee jerk reaction to any situation where they would be expected to speak english. The attitude is that it is their god given right to speak their native tongue.

While I do agree that Canada should have two native tongues and government services should be offered in both languages often the attitude goes too far. We are talking about something that has become a standard in the aviation industry due to the proliferation of english, not the Canadian government trying to put one over on the french canadians.

ATC communication having to be in english is not like forcing french canadian to go to english speaking schools, forcing them to speak english in court, or forcing them file their taxes in english.

Re:English is the universal language! (1)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 5 years ago | (#26228743)

ATC communication having to be in english is not like forcing french canadian to go to english speaking schools, forcing them to speak english in court, or forcing them file their taxes in english.

Whoa chief, this is french-speaking Candians we're talking about. Don't get all logical and practical on us here.

Re:English is the universal language! (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 5 years ago | (#26229777)

That's the kind of arrogance that we've been fighting in Quebec for so long.

Ah, Quebec - a wonderful place with people who feel so insecure about their culture that they mandate by law that all public signs (even on private property / business) with English text also have French text, and that French text is larger in size than English.

And then you think you can complain about someone else's arrogance?

Re:English is the universal language! (2, Insightful)

Nazlfrag (1035012) | more than 5 years ago | (#26223233)

Indeed, it's the lingua franca of our times. The licenses don't need translation, it's in leagalese anyway so it's probably half latin. They can be universally understood or at least interpreted by courts and lawyers, hell plain english needs interpretation in a courts jurisdiction. It's the man files they should be worried about.

Re:English is the universal language! (1)

MrMr (219533) | more than 5 years ago | (#26223537)

I think that translating the EULA to be legally valid in different jurisdictions is actually more difficult than translating the words to different languages.

Re:English is the universal language! (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 4 years ago | (#26224365)

Indeed, it's the lingua franca of our times.

Kinda ironic, isn't it?

...it's in leagalese anyway so it's probably half latin.

Actually, that might not be a bad idea...
Resurrecting Latin would be pretty neat.

Re:English is the universal language! (1)

Elektroschock (659467) | more than 5 years ago | (#26229357)

I think your comments are offensive. It is a real shame what Novell made out of Suse. No wonder most of them left. Maybe you can imagine that some people find the dominance of the English language quite offensive. It feels like colonialisation.

Re:English is the universal language! (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 5 years ago | (#26229383)

Having spent quite a bit of time in a foreign non-english-speaking nation, I do know clearly what it is like "on the other side" and I have grown quite comfortable on either side... indeed, finding a sense of mental freedom on the other side. You should relax a bit more. English is a mix of so many different languages and influences of languages that it is really hard to even call it "English" as if it were named from its country of origin. It should really be called "human." English is truly a very organized mess.

Languages other than English? (4, Insightful)

Syrente (990349) | more than 5 years ago | (#26222423)

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.

Re:Languages other than English? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26222441)

no shit, that's what i was thinking

Re:Languages other than English? (4, Funny)

digitig (1056110) | more than 5 years ago | (#26222479)

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)

Re:Languages other than English? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26222783)

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

Re:Languages other than English? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26222825)

This language selection is what Novell used to call EPFIGS for all their prior products such as NetWare.

They'd also have a special NetWare/J version for the Japanese market.

It's telling of our times that they now include Chinese as one of their "core" languages.

Re:Languages other than English? (2, Insightful)

Syrente (990349) | more than 4 years ago | (#26224045)

Indeed, it's a sad state of affairs when we cater to one third of the world's population...

Re:Languages other than English? (1)

owlstead (636356) | more than 5 years ago | (#26243511)

Don't bother with Dutch, unless you want to offend us :)

Re:Languages other than English? (1)

dronkert (820667) | more than 5 years ago | (#26222929)

You forgot:
  • English (Netherlands, The)

Re:Languages other than English? (3, Funny)

digitig (1056110) | more than 5 years ago | (#26223133)

I only got as far as "I". Although I did miss out English (French), which is as unintelligible to the English as French (British) is to the French.

Re:Languages other than English? (0)

dronkert (820667) | more than 5 years ago | (#26223291)

Har har.

Re:Languages other than English? (1)

AnibalOjeda (936222) | more than 5 years ago | (#26223697)

This is a good one ;-) lol

Re:Languages other than English? (4, Informative)

jabithew (1340853) | more than 5 years ago | (#26222577)

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 [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Languages other than English? (1)

cheftw (996831) | more than 5 years ago | (#26223059)

That doesn't only apply to the constitution but to the whole of the law. The English is only (officially) given as a guide and the law is entirely in Irish. This is interesting because an awful lot of Irish law is copypasta from England's.

Re:Languages other than English? (5, Informative)

Hal The Computer (674045) | more than 5 years ago | (#26223179)

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.

Re:Languages other than English? (1)

Elektroschock (659467) | more than 5 years ago | (#26229363)

Ireland is a sad English colony. As if it wasn't enough that the Irish were starved to death by the colonialists.

What...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26222425)

Who speaks Engrish anyways?

Re:What...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26223595)

Who speaks Engrish anyways?

Aye dou not no, botte my french ize motche better.

And this means what ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26222439)

Doesn't this New EULA mean that under the law , you can be more easily sued for using it ? It might it that simple No ?

Re:And this means what ? (4, Insightful)

houghi (78078) | more than 5 years ago | (#26222739)

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)

Re:And this means what ? (2, Informative)

hchaudh1 (963268) | more than 5 years ago | (#26222877)

You might want to take a look at this then: http://www.itwire.com/content/view/22434/1154/ [itwire.com]

Re:And this means what ? (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 5 years ago | (#26222947)

There the person talks about having a look at 11. There was no openSUSE 11. Only 11.0. The fact that people are sometimes so narrow minded and think there is only one way to number should lighten up. There is more then one way to give names and numbers to things then the *.0 is an advanced Beta.

Re:And this means what ? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26223827)

Yeah, MS gave them money. Why did they do that? Is MS benevolent? Do you honestly think MS wants Linux to succeed at heart, when they have a competing operating system? If you were a MS investor, would *you* be happy to have them giving money to the competition?

Re:And this means what ? (1)

ThePhilips (752041) | more than 4 years ago | (#26226029)

M$ might keep the deal floating for sole purpose to have something next time they are sued for desktop/server OS monopoly.

On other side, connections of M$ are so deep rooted in IT industry, that I guess that you can't buy a PC without ever using a single component produced by company not dealing with M$.

Yes, they are evil. Yes, we have to keep our eye on them. But you can't go around without ever coming into contact with them.

P.S. Actually on several occasions M$ was spotted to actually signing - often dummy - deals with pretty much everybody, including innocent bystanders on side roads. So when another company tried to find unaffiliated with M$ party - as e.g. witness in court - they couldn't.

Re:And this means what ? (1)

Yfrwlf (998822) | more than 5 years ago | (#26227695)

AC was me at work :P

You have a good point though, that could be one additional use of their setup, but of course they're also using it to:

a) Push development on their platforms like .NET onto Linux, so that even Linux developers will be developing for Windows and will be in their control, and in turn have some sort of control over Linux software and the Linux ecosystem.

b) Push their "patent protection" scam. These days, you can buy any kind of insurance you want, even patent protection insurance! There's no end to the number of individuals waiting to take your money for false senses of security.

c) EVIL. But seriously I'm sure there's all kinds of reasons.

They may be also doing it to prevent companies from switching off their products entirely and migrating fully over to Linux, but I really think they're hurting themselves more than helping themselves here. I it makes it easier to switch.

Re:And this means what ? (1)

ThePhilips (752041) | more than 5 years ago | (#26232947)

a) Push development on their platforms like .NET onto Linux, so that even Linux developers will be developing for Windows and will be in their control, and in turn have some sort of control over Linux software and the Linux ecosystem.

I doubt with Linux zoo of languages C# would make any huge splash.

But frankly, I'd say ".Net on Linux" has also positive side effects: Windows devels, bound by their jobs into Windows, now have a choice. And I have more than one friend who tried Linux solely to try their .Net app on Linux.

Point here is that Linux community should try to gain from deal to the fullest. Seeing what's happening now with Java, I doubt that in the end M$ would have any control over Linux or its ecosystem. If they push .Net too hard, they might become victim of its own popularity.

b) Push their "patent protection" scam. These days, you can buy any kind of insurance you want, even patent protection insurance! There's no end to the number of individuals waiting to take your money for false senses of security.

Here I can only hope for best. Recent rulings on patents and prior art (C# is conceptually not far from Smalltalk) mean that M$ would have hard time to enforce its patents. More than one analyst said already that M$ has no chances to enforce its patents and will not risk enforcing the patents: most if not all of the patents would be invalidated quite quickly.

Also I think that GPL provides enough protection to end-users and essentially leaves the burden of responsibility on Novell. The day Novell would choose to pass responsibility to end users - would be the last day of Novell in business. They can't be that stupid as to lose trust of its users and (most importantly) paying customers.

c) EVIL. But seriously I'm sure there's all kinds of reasons.

There is no argument that M$ will ever do something for free and likely would try to cash in if any opportunity would arise.

As .Net goes, due to its limited application field (mainly GUI applications) there is little possible harm to Linux ecosystem.

Or, as I'm always tempted to say: I do not care, I use IceWM and/or KDE ;)

Only English available? (5, Interesting)

Vertana (1094987) | more than 5 years ago | (#26222497)

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.

Re:Only English available? (4, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#26222915)

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.

Re:Only English available? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26223471)

Yet another example of the GPL not playing nice with anyone, including itself.

Re:Only English available? (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#26223587)

I used the GPL as an example, but this applies to any legal document, including all other free or proprietary software licenses.

Re:Only English available? (1)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 4 years ago | (#26224327)

If I provide a translation of my software, and it means something different than what I think, generally *I* am the one on the hook, not the licensee.

Now, if I said it was the GPL I may be commiting a trademark infringement or some such, but people receiving the code could use it with the license as I wrote it, if there was a dispute, they could resolve it in the license i received.

If the FSF did the translating themself, they could use the any version clause to make it a valid distribution option.

The worse case is that a bug is introduced in another language, and people use those terms to keep things closed. This would be similar to a person not authorized to give a discount at a store giving you one. Since you in good faith believed it was on the up-and-up, and they represented the store.

Re:Only English available? (1)

jrumney (197329) | more than 5 years ago | (#26227847)

So show the official English version by default with a link to "Click here to read an unofficial translation in your language". As long as the English version is presented as the definitive license, and the translation is presented as informational only, there shouldn't be a problem.

Re:Only English available? (1)

jbolden (176878) | more than 4 years ago | (#26224331)

Raven is right here. Which documents take priority is very very tricky legally. With software coming from mixed sources it gets worse. Having the english GPL be the official license and having local languages be additional documents dealing with local legal systems makes the most sense.

If u dont speek english go home (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26222785)

Its' the standadr languge so laern now or go home!!

EULA what the fuck? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26222847)

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.

Re:EULA what in tarnasion (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26223301)

Don't let the door hit your behind on the way out, potty mouth. It's only words and if you can get so bent out of shape over words you obviously have not read, you need help. 1-888-KL5-help

Re:EULA what in tarnasion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26223505)

Is the EULA GPL'd ?

Re:EULA what in tarnasion (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 4 years ago | (#26225699)

Don't let the door hit your behind on the way out, potty mouth.

Oh, grow up. I try not to use such language, but my eyes aren't bleeding from reading it. If that put you in a moral panic, I suggest you avoid the rest of the Internet; you may be in for some surprises.

It's only words and if you can get so bent out of shape over words you obviously have not read, you need help.

Pot, meet kettle.

Re:EULA what in tarnasion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26226009)

Don't let the door hit your behind on the way out, potty mouth. It's only words and if you can get so bent out of shape over words you obviously have not read, you need help. 1-888-KL5-help

What the fuck is your problem, asshole? Why don't you get down on your pointy bitch knees and suck my dick?

Re:EULA what the fuck? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26223309)

As long as it's still GPL, you are allowed to modify the software before use, so I don't see any problem in removing the EULA.

Re:EULA what the fuck? (1)

skroops (1237422) | more than 4 years ago | (#26224647)

As long as it's still GPL, you are allowed to modify the software before use, so I don't see any problem in removing the EULA.

From the EULA:

By downloading, installing, or using openSUSE 11.1, you agree to the terms of this agreement.

In order to modify your must've downloaded it, and therefore have agreed to it.

Re:EULA what the fuck? (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 4 years ago | (#26224817)

By receiving this software you agree to the terms of the license of each individual package.

By receiving this distribution you agree not to utilize SuSE and the little green lizard thing and a few other logo's and icons owned by Novell, inc. in another product or redistribution them.

There is more to a distribution than just a collection of open source tools. They want to make sure to protect the branding they apply to the collection of tools.

Re:EULA what the fuck? (1)

mikesd81 (518581) | more than 4 years ago | (#26224915)

The EULA was for the proprietary software that used to be included. Like Adobe Reader and the binary drivers for video cards. Now you have to add the repositories for those after the install. They're not included w/ the DVD any more. How did you get marked insightful?

Re:EULA what the fuck? (1)

Lost Race (681080) | more than 4 years ago | (#26226123)

The only sane reason I can think of to put an EULA on free software is to disclaim liability.

Re:EULA what the fuck? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26229037)

Copyright protects an author's exclusive rights to do and to authorize REPRODUCTION, derivation, public performance and display, and distribution.

How copyright could be considered not for "use" is something unique to Slashdot's own brand of invented pedanticism. There is no individual "right to use" enumerated because each of the six exclusive rights constitute the uses of copyright, which involves original works of authorship. Copyright does not cover (mechanically) useful articles, which is unique to patent law.

>>Why the fuck should I have to agree to something just to use it?
Welcome to the real world. If you want something that is not yours, you must deal with another person to get it, and they are free to make whatever arrangements they wish to grant you however much of their rights they wish.

>>It should hamper my freedoms?
Your "freedoms" to what? You're free to reject the terms and go elsewhere. The GPL does the same thing, but you can't apparently see it. It's loaded with modifying language limiting liability and warranty claims (binding on everyone! shocker!). It just doesn't cost anything, so there's little reason to differentiate usage levels with license restrictions. It doesn't make it any less of a license agreement.

German version.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26223111)

The german version can be found on the polish website. it kind of just moved in..

Why bother? (0)

billsf (34378) | more than 5 years ago | (#26223661)

Since its well established nobody reads a EULA: Wouldn't it be painful to translate it into dozens of Languages? Perhaps computer programs can as legalese is very limited. Its more of a computer language and legalese might be parseable as such. Anybody who uses software surely knows its "at your own risk" and not much else.

As for FOSS, its expected everyone knows the spirit of the GPL and how it differs from the BSD contract. Not much else is enforceable on
a global scale.

Why bother (1)

gzipped_tar (1151931) | more than 5 years ago | (#26223711)

Why do they make such a long EULA... and why do end users have to "agree" to a license?

Why not just change the EULA to a concise "Notice of Rights" telling end users to do whatever they like, and distributors to follow the GPL?

Translate THIS. (1)

SrWebDeveloper (1419361) | more than 4 years ago | (#26223925)

Hey, it's called open source, man. Translate THIS.

WTF do they need a EULA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26224053)

It is open source, mostly licenced under the GPL, The distro as a whole is under the GPL. If the lawyers are restless, just display a copy of the GPL, (and perhaps also display the MPL, BSD and any other licences used in the distro) and be done with it.

POST A NEW FUCKING STORY ALREADY (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26224143)

this turd has been sitting on the front page for almost 4 hours. Quit pulling your pud and do your goddamn job!

Re:POST A NEW FUCKING STORY ALREADY (1)

east coast (590680) | more than 4 years ago | (#26224313)

I'm afraid the days of editors actually seeking out news is long gone. Upper management made stuff like the firehose for a reason and it wasn't to make your life easier.

YOU FAIL ITx... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26224615)

Read between the lines - they want to lock you in (1, Troll)

xtronics (259660) | more than 4 years ago | (#26224621)

I left M$ because of lock in. If you don't want to get locked in, think of Debian or at least Ubuntu.

To work on open software and retain rights to the contibution is not at all in the spirit of GPL-Opensource software.

Re:Read between the lines - they want to lock you (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26224777)

who cares? open sores is crap any way you look at it.

Re:Read between the lines - they want to lock you (1)

ducomputergeek (595742) | more than 4 years ago | (#26225737)

Here was our experience with Linux as we started development on our latest series of product. We took an off the shelf computer for development machine. Here is what happened:

Fedora 9: Kernel panic on boot.
Ubuntu: Hung after splash screen
Kubuntu: See Ubuntu
PCBSD: Installed, no printer drivers out of the box
openSuSE: Installed, printers worked out of the box

I outright prefer FreeBSD on the server side and Mac on the desktop side, but in our case, I can't make a good argument why we should not be deploying almost entirely on *SuSE. All our contract employees have desktops with OpenSuSE loaded on them. Full-time employees get a $2500 signing bonus to select a computer of their choice. Most buy a MacBook pro and then run openSuSE via Parallels or virtual box.

Later we discovered that our database vender of choice deploys on SLES as their default install. So we've pretty much moved all development and deployment of our applications to *SuSE. No all our stuff is written in Java, Python, and PHP. That will deploy on most any platform that supports those three languages.

Another major reason is that our clients can always find support even if something would happen to our company. They could still go and purchase support from Novell. Which is a huge selling point in our business. Most of our code is under an OSI license, either GPL or a modified Mozilla Public License, or in some cases MIT. Again, we get bought out or change direction, they are free to hire programmers or another firm to come in and do whatever they please to the system at any later date.

Re:Read between the lines - they want to lock you (1)

xtronics (259660) | more than 5 years ago | (#26252889)

Sounds like you guys are really new to the *nix world. If you have Linux friendly hardware it is really easier than installing windoze these days.

If you are using a proprietary DB vendor you really don't understand how to best make use of opensource and are locked in anyway.

As far as support, I hear this all the time, but don't get it. I find the free support of the community fixes things faster than any paid support I've ever used. (I've used almost all of them). The differences betweent he distributions are actually very small and someone with experience with RedHat would have no problem supporting Debian or Susie.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...