OpenSUSE's EULAs vs. Free Software Ideals

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.

At least...

... we have been warned.

I know I will never recommend S.u.S.E. again.

BTW I think it's to whet one's appetite.

You are totally unfair: Red hat does the same!

... we have been warned.

I know I will never recommend S.u.S.E. again.

You are being totally unfair. The article is on a deliberate rampage against Novell and uses out-of-context examples in a deliberate attempt to deliver FUD about SuSE.

Let us please return to a FACT BASED discussion here.

The time-bombing mechanism clause is in the EULA in order to warn users that the commercial distro can be used on a trial-basis, which will disable itself after some time. That is no different than the way a billion other shareware software products have been distributed for the last 3

the openSUSE community

Novell doesn't really seem interested in the openSUSE community beyond using them as free testers anyway. Build Service notwithstanding, openSUSE is built by Novell and not by its community. Bugs on the bugzilla can link via dependency to closed internal bugs and then it's just "sorry, that's internal, we'll fix it now sit quietly please".

I think there's some people with hearts in the right place even inside Novell (I'm not just talking about the Czech and German teams) but as an aggregate they don't show much sign on "getting it" where the community model is concerned.

Re:

It sure is a good thing that there are other distros out there. Novell can go fall into a hole so far as I'm concerned.

Re:

Exactly. It's not like we have a shortage of distros.

I used to be a big SUSE fan; I started using it back in 1999 IIRC. I even got a free box copy of 10.0 sent to me because I helped in some bug-fixing. But then the MS patent deal happened, and my next OS upgrade was not to another version of SUSE, but to Kubuntu instead. I've been using Kubuntu ever since (just upgraded to 8.04 this weekend), and am very happy with it. The package management is so far ahead of the RPM mess that SUSE still uses, I'm an

Re:

Just kick the ximian guys out, the Microsoft fraud and return to KDE. Ah, and make a Debian installer based distribution. YaST is great.

We'll see how it holds up vs. GPL

I don't know if an EULA is even enforceable but we'll see how this EULA holds up against the GPL since almost all packages on their system are licensed under the GPL. Too bad it'll probably take another lawsuit to test this flying heap of poo.

Re:

I doubt we will.

SUSE would most likely have to sue. You don't need to sue for the right to use the software. If you have the right to and the ability to, you just use it. Adding extra unenforcible terms would be equivalent to me saying "you may not respond to this post". Would that stop you? If I genuinely thought I had the right to demand such a condition I could sue you if you did but it would be laughed out of court

Re:We'll see how it holds up vs. GPL

Are you implying that my EULA is unenforceable?

I'm shocked. Positively shocked.

Re:

No you aren't.

Re:We'll see how it holds up vs. GPL

No he is... I tased him!

Re:

No, you didn't.

This is acknowledged in the full EULA

I don't know if an EULA is even enforceable but we'll see how this EULA holds up against the GPL since almost all packages on their system are licensed under the GPL.

In fact, if you read the whole EULA instead of the /. summary, you may notice that :
- novell acknowledges that this is as collection of software, most of which come with various OSS license
- the EULA re-states copyleft software themselves may be freely copied
- novell on claims the work of putting them together

The beta EULA, given the context, may also be a poorly written "Warning : unstable and may crash randomly". The context of this sentence doesn't sound as "We have put a DRM and the distribution will self-destruct on purpose". /. should try to obtain an interview with some guys at Novell, so we can get to ask them what this is really all about.

Re:

The EULA specifically states that licensing for individual components overrides this. Additionally, it seems to be more of a "Don't build on top of this and use our trademarks" more than anything else

Can they even do this?

Is this not like re-licensing the code they ship? I guess most of the software they package is GPL, so is applying an EULA on GPLed code even allowed? Novell should be free to put EULAs on the code *they* write (of course), but OpenSUSE is a distro, and I guess most of the code is not their own.

FTFL

To expand on what cp.tar already said, from the second paragraph of the license:

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.

Because the (L)GPL prohibits distributors from placing any additional restrictions on the software, none of the rest of the license applies to (L)GPLed portions of the distribution.

I'm not sure if these restrictions would apply to BSD software. For sure Novell is not required by the BSD license to release the software under a BSD license, but they do - a copy of the license is included with all the BSD software. I'm pretty sure the BSD license would override the terms of distribution spelled out in the EULA, but I don't know about the benchmarking section.

It gets especially confusing to me if you were say benchmarking the LAMP stack on SUSE 11 vs other distributions, since that starts to fall under the software as a collection rather than as individual packages.

Earth to Novell...

You know, the world's not exactly beating a path to Linux distros. It might not be the best idea to piss off a huge percentage of your intended audience, especially given that it's much more freedom-loving than most.

Creeping Evil

That's sad, as I used to like SUSE back around 2000. I guess we can expect the same thing to happen to Google someday...the older a company gets, the more it gets taken over by lawyers and abandons any early ideals.

The EULAs are for different products.

The beta is from openSUSE (the non-oss version) ( http://lwn.net/Articles/283566/ [lwn.net] )
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 [nluug.nl] )
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 [nluug.nl] )

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

Yall are rabid!

Lets see, Novell has Novell/SuSE graphics and branding on the distribution. So you want to be able to take it, repackage it to fit your needs/desires/rabid tastes then still leave all the branding on it so it looks like it's the real Novell product. get a life!

As for the benchmarking. That is a GOOD THING. It implies that if MS benchmarks Novell/SuSE and published the results, Novell then has the right to Benchmark MS's OS in spite of what the Way more draconion EULA states.

  They don't stop you from distributing the code, nor benchmarking. They just ask that you respect their branding and if you can benchmark theirs, they can benchmark yours.

Boycott Novell

No problem, I'm not supporting Novell anymore anyway. Yes, they are an open source company, so they have helped out the community greatly in many other regards, however, if they wanted to continue helping, then they shouldn't have signed that patent deal.

If Novell was serious about helping Linux and FOSS, they should have rejected getting on the patent train. Not only does it help legitimize software patents which shouldn't exist, but it's also a slap in the face to anyone not running their distro as you are only "protected" from Microsoft's patent racket if you use SLED/SLES and possibly Suse.

I'm for businesses which stand up against the concept of software patents and stand up against big companies which try to trample on something good. The GPL can only do so much against software patents, so it's up to us to voice our discontent with them, and it's up to companies to do the same.

Not to mention, I dislike how ridiculous all the things are which are granted software patents. Ooh, you changed your menu layout slightly? Congratu-fucking-lations, here's your patent.

Pure slashfud

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

Re:

The fedora project does the same thing: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/Licenses/LicenseAgreement9 [fedoraproject.org]

Those dirty scoundrels, they're all the same! Seriously though, thanks for running the EULA for us. :)

Re:

I certainly did. That's why I was so readily able to pronounce it to be fud. The author of the article clearly doesn't understand the SUSE EULA and is simply quoting parts of it out of context and offering his completely inappropriate 'analysis' of those cherry picked phrases. The article is bullshit and if you could be bothered to read my post along with the SUSE EULA you'd see that too.

Have you installed Firefox lately?

If you took part in Firefox Download Day, did you notice the unpleasant EULA that the Firefox installer pops up? Pretty much the same as any proprietary application. Looks like another case of taking free software and slapping a restrictive EULA on it for no reason other than the legal department think it's a good idea. I don't think what OpenSUSE does is right, and I'm glad I use Fedora, but it is certainly becoming more common.