Re: Where can I buy Suse 9.2 Cds on the cheap

From: Alan (alan_at_nonsite.co.uk)
Date: 03/03/05 

Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 08:01:46 GMT

Try :
www.uselinux.co.uk

I bough Suse Pro 9.2 just the other day. Arrived very quick.
Its a disk with a copy of the downloadable DVD version
If you want a paper manual and CDs, then you'll have to buy the official
Suse box set. YOu can pick this up on Amazon.co.uk - about 45 quid for the
pro version.

Best,
Alan

Rick Moen wrote:

> Ruel Smith <NoWay@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> [nVidia driver:]
>
>>> If memory serves, nVidia permits redistribution.
>>
>> Then why does SuSE still require you to download it via YOU? If they
>> allow redistribution, then they should include it on the CD like Mandrake
>> does.
>
> Why are you asking _me_? If you want to examine nVidia's terms of
> usage, you certainly shouldn't need my help. What am I, your butler?
>
> I don't own nVidia cards for which such drivers would be useful, and
> have not to date had any reason to download them.
>
> However, since you're apparently having problems figuring out how to do
> that, let's grab some from
> http://www.nvidia.com/content/drivers/drivers.asp , and examine version
> 1.0-6629 for IA32, thus leading to
> http://www.nvidia.com/object/nv_swlicense.html
>
> Hmm. That includes this: "...SOFTWARE designed exclusively for use on
> the Linux or FreeBSD operating systems, or other operating systems
> derived from the source code to these operating systems, may be copied
> and redistributed, provided that the binary files thereof are not
> modified in any way...."
>
> So, I was correct.
>
> As to why SUSE/Novell don't include such drivers on their CDs (if such
> is the case), how the hell would I know? Feel free to suggest that to
> them -- or do you need help with that, too?
>
>
>>> You're implicitly saying, if I can download it, then I don't care about
>>> copyright infringement. OK, you don't care -- but you're still in
>>> violation of copyright law. Please don't advise others to do likewise
>>> without also telling them you're advising themselves to break the law.
>>
>> Wrong. I said that if it's offered at absolutely no cost, and is widely
>> available to the general public, it has no monetary value. If something
>> has no monetary value, then it can't be stolen.
>
> This is (1) wrong, (2) irrelevant, and (3) rests on a false assumption.
>
> 1. Title is title, regardless of marketability. Break into my house
> and steal my sole picture of my late father, and you'll find out.
>
> 2. However, the law of _theft_ (a criminal law concept) is irrelevant
> to this topic: We were speaking of copyright violation, which is a tort
> under civil law.
>
> 3. Although marketability _is irrelevant_ to the question of copyright
> infringement, your underlying assumption that making one edition of
> something downloadable inherently destroys the value of all other
> instances is demonstrably false. See: MySQL AB.
>
> You are basically making feeble, bull*** excuses for copyright
> violation. That's OK; I don't mind. I just want to make sure they're
> labelled as such, and that others are warned against the possible legal
> consequences of following your advice.
>
>
>>> Yes, you did. You said that if you can download something off the
>>> Internet for free, then it should be OK to redistribute. And that is
>>> simply not true.
>>
>> No, the difference is that it has to be widely distributed by the
>> publisher. Downloading via P2P is another matter altogether. The
>> publisher has to freely give it away and make it widely available to the
>> general public.
>
> Sorry, but you're still wrong. Redistribution is a reserved right, per
> the copyright statutes. Which you should get off your ass and read.
>
>
> [Moneyplex:]
>
>> This is a light version of the home banking software from Matrica. It
>> supports smart card readers (currently Kobil Standard, Kobil Pro, and
>> Cyberjack), online banking through HBCI, PIN/TAN transactions, and
>> security media that some banks support.
>> Moneyplex is only available in German.
>
> Ah, thank you for checking that. So, you _are_ capable of checking
> things.
>
>> So, if that package doesn't get installed, then there is no foul.
>
> I'm sorry, but this thread concerned redistribution of CD images (e.g.,
> of Professional Edition), and components thereof. Redistributing
> Moneyplex _would be_ copyright violation, regardless of whether you
> speak German or not.
>
> Thus my point. If you want to switch topics and say "Well, I've decided
> to change to talking about redistributing only specific RPMs, and would
> not redistribute that particular RPM because I don't speak German", that
> would be fine but a rather different discussion.