OpenSUSE 10.3 Alpha 3 has been released. "On x86-64: Firefox is now a 64-bit package and uses nspluginwrapper to handle 32bit i386 plugins if needed; AppArmor uses now a new parser; the kernel patches have been reworked completely; GNOME 2.18 mostly integrated; update to kernel 2.6.21RC5."
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-01-28
Open source does not mean lazy source. You can redistribute Opensuse as is and respect Novell's trademarks or replace them with your own where that's necessary.
This isn't too difficult as you can see from the CentOS relationship with Red Hat enterprise.
I have no problem with trademarks as they do not impact your ability to work with the code, modify and redistribute it. The only thing they really do is they make sure that someone cannot create a nastysuse full of rootkits and legally call it opensuse.
Edited 2007-04-12 23:22
Member since:2006-05-12
You have valid point about someone put a rootkit in and call it OpenSuSE. But if you read GPL, there is no warranties whatsoever and it even doesn't prohibit you from re-distributing.
Again, is openSuSE 100% GPL compliance? The answer is No.
When you install openSuSE and Mandriva for example. Read the license carefully. You will see where the difference is. And I'm sure you're aware of it.
I haven't paid attention much to Fedora Core, which is a project from Red Hat. I don't think they prohibit you to re-distribute FC, do they? So, why can't Novell let go of its tm name as RH did with Fedora Core?
Edited 2007-04-13 01:02
Member since:2006-08-09
Member since:
2006-05-12
Don't get me wrong, openSuSE is great for newbies but sadly one can't redistribute the CD without going through all the hassle of removing Novell tm. If it is really to reach out to an open source community, don't limit what they could do with it, IMHO.