Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 9th Mar 2006 17:43 UTC, submitted by HeLfReZ
Novell and Ximian "SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop is an all-in-one solution that contains technology innovations and usability breakthroughs including integrated desktop search, accelerated graphical interfaces and numerous application improvements. SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop delivers market-leading usability plus an exceptional end user experience with an easy-to-use and easy-to-learn environment. Seamless interoperability and support for standards allows SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop to readily coexists with Windows, Mac, Unix and other operating systems." The preview page has some screenshots and a screencast. My take: And there was much rejoicing. I'm seriously looking forward to this release.
Thread beginning with comment 102864
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
DittoBox
Member since:
2005-07-08

You make great points but I'm a little confused by your saying that they're great for "Keeping them [novell's projects] GPL." What do you mean? I was under the impression that once something is GPL licensed it can never be placed under any other license again.

If you could simply "close the source" (that is change the license mid stream) on something we'd call it BSD. GPL != BSD, and that's why the GPL exists.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong...

Reply Parent Score: 1

elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

You make great points but I'm a little confused by your saying that they're great for "Keeping them [novell's projects] GPL." What do you mean? I was under the impression that once something is GPL licensed it can never be placed under any other license again.

If you could simply "close the source" (that is change the license mid stream) on something we'd call it BSD. GPL != BSD, and that's why the GPL exists.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong...


No, if they obtained the copyrights for the software when they acquired Ximian (for example), they can simply re-release the software with any modifications or improvements under a closed license. The GPL would prevent non-copyright holders from doing the same thing, and it would ensure that the pre-closed source remains available with a GPL license.

Generally speaking, closing source is frowned upon but it's not unprecedented.

BSD would allow anyone to take the code and change the license.

Reply Parent Score: 5

dumbkiwi Member since:
2006-01-02

BSD would allow anyone to take the code and change the license.

No it wouldn't.

Reply Parent Score: 3

present_arms Member since:
2005-07-09

What would happen is if they took the program out of GPL licence is that at the point that it's no longer GPL a fork of it would appear based on the code that was still GPL'd

Reply Parent Score: 3

gamehack Member since:
2005-06-29

I think you're wrong (but I might be too). The point is that if all the developers agree, they CAN change the license for any release AFTER the current snapshot. What they cannot do is relicense releases which were under the GPL. That's how I think it works but I'm not sure. Anyone competent on that issue?

Regards

Reply Parent Score: 2

eMagius Member since:
2005-07-06

If you could simply "close the source" (that is change the license mid stream) on something we'd call it BSD. GPL != BSD, and that's why the GPL exists.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong...


You're incredibly wrong.

Reply Parent Score: 1

DittoBox Member since:
2005-07-08

Thanks for the (mostly) helpful replies. I understand better now.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"If you could simply "close the source" (that is change the license mid stream) on something we'd call it BSD."

It's nice to see that the GPL FUD machine is still alive and well. With the risk of beating the already dead horse into groundbeef I'll just state that you cant close BSD source any more than you can close GPL source. Period. End of story.

Reply Parent Score: 0

DittoBox Member since:
2005-07-08

I don't think you understood what I was saying, and I'm not spreading fud.

You can fork a BSD project and never release the code, even if you're not the copyright holder.

Either way you can't retroactively "change" a license. You can fork originally BSD'd code but the original code is still BSD, thus still "open source".

And if you're going to just tell me that you can't "close source" something at least explain why. You complain about FUD but you don't do much to stop or combat it other than tell someone they're wrong. Explain why they're wrong and help them understand a little better, so they don't inadvertently start spreading FUD.

Reply Parent Score: 2