text_combined: rick moen ricklinuxmafiacom paul apologies irritable subject ill tone rhetoric quoting paul linehan plinehanyahoocom indeed actually understood prior example commercial entities triallimitedcrippled editions problem dont see problem suse though surely merrrier far theyre concerned anything either say motivation speculation bearing disclaimer mind heres mine make money selling boxed sets theyre glad make versions available almostunrestricted distribution value via cd duplication internet estimate wont substitute boxedset sales example _could_ packaged call ftp edition iso9660 images fact didnt suggests see inconvenience mirroring ftp edition i386 files moment v 80 motivation really determined buy boxed sets instead likewise _could_ release v 80 current version evaluation singledisk iso image instead always keep several versions behind seems like incentive buy boxed set evaluating suse via iso image speculation motivations know certainty permissions theyve granted bit messy complex nonetheless quite clear permissions reminder apply suseproduced components yast yast2 distribution installer program possibly utilities dont know _they_ wrote code every right grant withhold permissions suit best one suspect one likes didnt understand suse proprietary extensions wasnt prepared allow people use gpl even freebsd style licence hmm lets slow theres persistent misconception possible place somebody elses work new licence without permission nothing copyright law would make possible copyright _owner_ inherent rights eg software work entitled issue many _instances_ code diverse licences wishes gives copy licence statement theres effectively default licence operation copyright law avoid going long digression let say proprietary licence default thats order open source software must explicit licence copyright holder linux distribution _ever_ entails relicensing peoples software without explicit permission since relicensing occur get away taking suse linux ags work redistributing claim bsd licence gpl anything copyright owner specified simply lack right claiming would copyright violation thought model likes suse selling support customisation rather thought core product thought likes yast came core maybe worked glory days say 2001 understand might want make money way done seems spirit gpl stallman friends gpl let alone linus torvalds kernel contributors intended prohibit putting gpled works cds proprietary ones selling result via retail stores plus mail order etc shrinkwrapped boxes im 100 certain could would done guess didnt even require anybody give copies gpled components ever require _if_ received gpled software lawfully able get matching source code limited period upon request spirit gpl say id suggest stallman company knew exactly degree access gpled software exactly mind want os gnu apps impression _those_ one needed pay media code aije tort mais si indeed misconception may want read text gpl verify fact gpl _not_ entitle copy binary software section 2 provides rights access matching source code _if_ lawfully received copy covered binary section provides three alternative mechanisms distributor provide access suse _do_ actually provide exactly access think case believe theres gpled codebase lawfully receive suse whose matching source code making available exactly required please tell us codebase would suse linux ags headache might interesting examine understanding binaries whatever could received cost media plus token ones appreciation latter subject agreement parties offering bottle wine plus maybe pint two chat copy dont know going rate understanding almost correct quite 1 access provisions gpl concern access _source code_ binaries 2 kicks _only_ people whove lawfully received covered binaries 3 _covered_ software means instances codebases actually placed gnu gpl copyright owners mere act placing piece software cdrom gpled software doesnt gpl fact assertion contrary favourite fud tactic enemies linux theyre forever trying convince software producers using gpled software way proprietary offerings taint copyrights force put property gpl simply wanted support suse would different issue one would willing pay thats nice theyre _offering_ exact contents boxed sets free charge lawful duplicate redistribute borrow one thing noticed earlier listing components boxed sets cdroms include quite lot _thirdparty_ proprietary software suse linux ag _cannot_ allow friend hand copies software freely first place friend 73 think ill end mean 3cd core set rh 73 good quite decent distribution bear mind rh 73 boxed sets include thirdparty applications whose owners would upset find copied borrowed realised thanks kind explanations borrow copy look collection software many elements may lawfully given multiple people friend installing _not_ erasing merely letting borrow cds results product installed multiple places thats unauthorised copying ive tried explain licence terms say trials commercial company x object way suse appears least peasant self mixed proprietary open stuff well dont like suse probably wont like caldera edesk xandros desktop lycoris deskop lx libranet lindows krud either depending criteria also might like red hat linuxmandrake yellow dog since boxedset retail sets include cdroms may publicly redistributed dont even use suse im trying clarify licensing question cheers live faust die jung rick moen ricklinuxmafiacom irish linux users group iluglinuxie httpwwwlinuxiemailmanlistinfoilug unsubscription information list maintainer listmasterlinuxie mon 12 aug 2002 175341 0700 ilug suse 8 disks thread changed slightly