On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 04:59 -0500, ryan wrote: > Not all closed-source software is illegal for public distribution. I never said they were. In fact, some distros do distribute software that is not fully open source, but is still 100% redistributable. That's not a legal issue for projects. Remember, the whole reason I even mentioned this was because some distros have a unified set of repositories, and that includes redistribution of items it did _not_ properly license for redistribution. > For example, NVIDIA specifically allows their closed source drivers to be > redistributed (for Linux / BSD only): > http://www.nvidia.com/object/nv_swlicense.html > It is not legal distribute GPL software everywhere. Not all countries permit > their people to run OS's that can tunnel encrypted traffic (squid and SSH), > or sniff traffic out of the air (wireless acrd and ethereal). And those laws varying in locale. Whole different issue. But when you redistribute software without a license, that is a pretty universal issue. > OpenSUSE is 100% GPL until modified (like Fedora). The fact that 99.9% of its > users make it non-GPL compliant so they can play their MP3s and DVDs doesn't > change the fact that when you download its all GPL. Actually, Novell/SuSE have _not_ removed all the software from OpenSuSE they have licensed. But they are getting close with 10.0. > Keep in mind where their home base is. Frankly, any move made against them by > a US software company would only generate sympathy, and could be potentially > unsuccessful given MS's rather poor track record n EU court's lately. Illegal redistribution is illegal redistribution. It's not debatable. -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith at ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ------------------------------------------ Some things (or athletes) money can't buy. For everything else there's "ManningCard."