Re: Finally updated--new distros
- From: Unruh <unruh-spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 7 Jan 2007 04:45:29 GMT
"Robert M. Riches Jr." <spamtrap42@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
On 2007-01-07, Tom Hardy <rhardy@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
John Hasler wrote:
Tom Hardy writes:
My computer is getting a little old for modern Linux. It's an Intel
440BX SMP model that came out in 1997, with the last BIOS update late in
2000. The Suse kernel hasn't played nice with it, and I had to boot in
"Safe Mode" without SMP.
I run Debian/Unstable with a 2.6.16 kernel on my 440GX with dual 500Mhz
Pentium IIIs with no problems at all.
This is something I'll have to look at later; I've got to go to work. I
haven't even rebooted since the initial install. Here's what I know:
"vga=0x317 resume=/dev/hdc7 splash=silent showopts" doesn't work. It hangs
where it is saying something about ticks or Hz.
"vga=normal showopts ide=nodma apm=off acpi=off noresume nosmp noapic
maxcpus=0 edd=off 3" works. Additionally, DMA works, and startx works.
What is edd?
The license doesn't appear to be GPL compatible...
What license? Every package need not be licensed under GPL-compatible
terms, or even under Free terms at all.
They've got a click-wrap deal where I agree that it is a collective work of
Novell, and IIRC it is *Licensed* not *Sold*. Hard to argue with that
since I didn't buy it (though I have bought many Suse boxed sets in the
past), but it is very important to me that I have ownership of at least the
base system, if not the latest multimedia gizmo, much as I have ownership
of a book I buy, even though I don't own the copyright. It all gets a
little hairy with computer software.
Here is a license: it looks like the one I clicked. Look at the
sections "OTHER LICENSE TERMS AND RESTRICTIONS" and "OWNERSHIP RIGHTS".
It is not clear what the first applies to, and the second appears to flat
out contradict everything that comes before.
openSUSE 10.2 OSS
Novell Software License Agreement
PLEASE READ THIS AGREEMENT CAREFULLY. BY DOWNLOADING, INSTALLING OR
OTHERWISE USING THE SOFTWARE (INCLUDING ITS COMPONENTS), YOU AGREE TO
My guess, and it's just a guess, is that the verbage about
ownership and it being licensed not sold is to get around a
provision I understand is called the 'first sale' doctrine
in US copyright law that says the buyer of a book has the
right to resell the book.
But the GPL already gives you that right. Copyright law applies to copies.
However, I believe that they are saying that they retain that copyright.
You may own the medium, but the copyright is not being sold with the item.
However their provision of no reverse engineering is clearly contrary to
the GPL. In fact they must give you the source code. Their trademark
restriction is also dicey. In so far as it acts as a barrier to
redistribution it infringes the GPL in my opinion.
When HatRed abandoned the middle segment of its customer
base and I looked for a new distro, I looked at the SuSE
license. It appeared to be a crude machine translation,
likely from German. It was so riddled with grammatical
errors and such that I couldn't tell whether I could
redistribute it (burn CDs to give to family, friends, etc.)
At least now the document appears to be grammatically
After seeing this, I'm very glad I didn't choose SuSE, even
if the recent patent-related "deal" between Novell and Billy
Gates' company hadn't happened.
(Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)
- Prev by Date: Re: Finally updated--new distros
- Next by Date: Re: Difference in the Way an Email is Saved
- Previous by thread: Re: Finally updated--new distros
- Next by thread: Re: Finally updated--new distros