Comments on: sudo zypper up from factory repo now requires EULA Agreement

By: criminal defense attorney

criminal defense attorney — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:20:08 +0000

I wanted to show my appreciation for your point of view on this topic by leaving you a good comment. Thank you for writing quality material for readers like me. You are a blessed writer.

By: public storage

public storage — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 12:35:15 +0000

Thanks for offering up this article to readers everywhere. It’s good information with a lot of hutzpah. You pack a great punch with your views.

By: blr

blr — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 07:06:24 +0000

I’m of like mind with you on many of your points mentioned in this content. I respect your writing abilities and appreciate your unique views.

By: openSUSE ditches the EULA | Ben Kevan's Blog

openSUSE ditches the EULA | Ben Kevan's Blog — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 05:37:27 +0000

[...] weeks ago when upgrading to a Beta version of openSUSE 11.1 I complained about the EULA that I had to agree to after doing a zypper [...]

By: Boycott Novell » Do-No-Evil Saturday - Part I: OpenSUSE Board Announced, More Beta Slippage

Sat, 01 Nov 2008 22:38:37 +0000

[...] Kevan, who has been blogging about OpenSUSE for quite some time, seems to be new to the controversial EULA assigned to non-final OpenSUSE releases (builds rather). I went to upgrade from openSUSE 11.1 Beta [...]

By: ben.kevan

ben.kevan — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 23:25:59 +0000

I’ve never had to accept the EULA while doing an upgrade via zypper from the Factory repository. This is the first time i’ve actually had to.

With your explination Wafaa that means every time you install something FROM factory you should then have to agree to a NEW EULA.

I have actaully distributed a copy of openSUSE 11.1 Beta to others that wanted to help test the beta product. They understand it’s beta but in essense I am breaking the EULA.

My main point was why did they include it in a zypper upgrade? Or are they actaully worried about people distributing a distribution packaged from zypper to the masses?

It’s just strange that if I give someone a Beta / RC CD/DVD to try and help reduce the bug count, I am in essense breaking the EULA.

But thanks for the clarifications.

By: Growing FOSS communities through EULA’s | Steven Harms' Blog

Growing FOSS communities through EULA’s | Steven Harms' Blog — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 22:30:49 +0000

[...] Mr. Wafaa clears up the situation: “Yawn! This EULA is used with *every* non-final release. The main purpose is to protect openSUSE and Novell from magazines and other distributors from bundling a non-GM release as the final product. Hence the “interesting point” [...]

By: sharms

sharms — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 22:08:06 +0000

How is something Open and not distributable? Beta or not, that is crap.

By: Wafaa

Wafaa — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 22:05:27 +0000

Yawn! This EULA is used with *every* non-final release. The main purpose is to protect openSUSE and Novell from magazines and other distributors from bundling a non-GM release as the final product. Hence the “interesting point”

As the release number has changed, it effectively becomes a new release hence requiring confirmation of the EULA.

Would you rather no EULA, and have it distributed by someone as the real deal and wonder why people moan that openSUSE is an unstable worthless distro?

By: Vavai

Vavai — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 21:25:20 +0000

Ben,

THE SOFTWARE MAY NOT BE SOLD, TRANSFERRED, OR FURTHER DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM NOVELL

It’s for non finished version (alpha, beta, rc) to prevent any complain about unfinished product.

The EULA has complained due to this misunderstanding (Google search for previous version EULA complain)