Is the default openSUSE install a GPL system?

Is the default openSUSE GPL, meaning it doesn’t contain any proprietary software (even at Kernel level)? I don’t want Kernel blobs so I’m looking for a good Arch alternative.

Regards,
Michael.

Yes.
All the non-OSS stuff is either in an extra repository (repo-non-oss contains things like flash-player and opera), or not available in the distribution at all.
For proprietary drivers (e.g. nvidia, fglrx, broadcom-wl) you have to add additional 3rd party repos or install them manually.

Some non-GPL stuff from repo-non-oss will be automatically installed when you first enter Software Management after the initial installation (in particular flash-player and the Fluendo MP3 plugin for gstreamer), but you can of course unselect/uninstall those packages or even disable/remove the repo if you don’t want that.

You can look at the license of each package with “rpm -qi packagename” or in YaST (“Technical Data” tab) btw.
The sources (including all openSUSE patches) are available in repo-source (you have to enable that in YaST->Software Repositories or with zypper though, it is configured but disabled by default), or on OBS directly.

Hi, thanks for answering.

Maybe I was a little confusing. I’m not looking forward to install OSS (open-source software), only Free-Software (FOSS), meaning no kernel proprietary firmware either.
Would I still be satisfied with this distro or it contains opensource software by default?

Good, because I’m not going to install that :smiley:

So I get a prompt which allows me to deselect them. It’s OK then :slight_smile:

Good!

Well, GPL is FOSS, isn’t? :wink:
repo-oss only contains software with GPL or compatible licenses.

So I get a prompt which allows me to deselect them. It’s OK then :slight_smile:

Not exactly.
If you enter YaST->Software Management, they will get selected automatically for installation.
When you press OK you will get a dialog showing all automatic changes though that you must confirm or cancel.

If you really are that picky about only installing FOSS software, you should enter YaST->Software Repositories as first thing after installation and disable or remove the non-oss repo. Then the software in there won’t be offered or tried to be installed at all any more of course.

But please note, that this repo also includes open source software that “only” has a dubious/non-free license, like cg, povray, unrar, xv.
If I understand you correctly, the license is the main/only criterium for you though. So you won’t be interested in installing those anyway, I suppose… :wink:

Hehehehe.

Yes, GPL is FOSS, and is very different from OSS.
OSS is something I don’t intend to look at. FOSS, yes.

I won’t mind at all! :slight_smile: I’m used to live without them.

I’ll give openSUSE a spin later today to see if it meets my criteria. I mostly read good stuff about it.

Regards,
Michael.

Hm, but this is actually a contradiction. :wink:
FOSS is OSS, by definition. Not necessarily the other way round though, i.e. an open source application might not necessarily be FOSS.

Anyway, I don’t want to start a discussion here… :wink:
It’s clear what you mean/have in mind anyway.

So again, repo-oss only contains free open source software.

On Tue, 19 Aug 2014 13:16:02 +0000, wolfi323 wrote:

> Well, GPL is FOSS, isn’t? :wink:
> repo-oss only contains software with GPL or compatible licenses.

Arguably, though, it does include kernel-firmware, which includes binary-
only blobs that have (AFAIK) been deemed compatible with the GPL.

And the package is not required unless you have hardware that depends on
those firmware blobs.

Jim


Jim Henderson
openSUSE Forums Administrator
Forum Use Terms & Conditions at http://tinyurl.com/openSUSE-T-C

Yes, (and depending on the hardware involved), may have an effect on the OP’s question: ‘Would I still be satisfied with this distro or it contains opensource software by default?’.

On 2014-08-20 06:26, deano ferrari wrote:
>
> hendersj;2660299 Wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Aug 2014 13:16:02 +0000, wolfi323 wrote:
>>
>>> Well, GPL is FOSS, isn’t? :wink:
>>> repo-oss only contains software with GPL or compatible licenses.
>>
>> Arguably, though, it does include kernel-firmware, which includes binary-
>> only blobs that have (AFAIK) been deemed compatible with the GPL.
>>
>> And the package is not required unless you have hardware that depends on
>> those firmware blobs.

> Yes, (and depending on the hardware involved), may have an effect on the
> OP’s question: ‘Would I still be satisfied with this distro or it
> contains opensource software by default?’.

(Talking from memory)

There were talks years ago of adding a switch or something during
installation to select a pure GPL system, or to block packages based on
the license types (multiple choice). On the end what they did was to
separate packages on two repositories, one for opensource software and
one for not opensource. The separation is strict, I believe, but not
necessarily on GPL or not.

The “non-oss” repo is rather small, and I don’t know of a document or
link from the legal team where they describe, even briefly, why a
package is oss nor not. When you think a package is misplaced, you have
to ask.

In fact, some packages have been completely removed from the
distribution, and are neither in the oss nor the non-oss repos. For
instance, “qpopper”, which people now and then ask about. It was removed
because of “unsuitable license” (no details given). The wikipedia says
“BSD style license”. The actual license can be found here
http://www.eudora.com/products/unsupported/qpopper/license.html,
and it is certainly not GPL. I have doubts about it been “open”.

For instance, this package: perlref-5.004.1-4.1.6.noarch.rpm, described
as “Perl 5 Reference Guide” has License:SUSE-NonFree and thus is in the
non-oss repo. I don’t know what license it really has unless I install it.

But this means that you will certainly see non-gpl packages in the OSS
repo. If you run this:


rpm -q -a --queryformat \
"%-30{LICENSE}	%{NAME}-%{VERSION}-%{RELEASE}
" \
| sort | less -S

…you get a sorted list of all installed packages, by licenses, and I
see many types besides GPL. MIT, LGPL, GPL, Apache, AFL, AGPL,
“CC-BY-SA-3.0 or BSD-3-Clause”, Artistic-1.0, BSD-2, BSD-3, …,
SUSE-Permissive, SUSE-Public-Domain… and many others.

This command:


rpm -q -a --queryformat "%-30{LICENSE}
" | sort | uniq | less -S

might list all the unique licenses, and I see 327 (“Public Domain” and
Public domain" count as two - if you want to polish the list further,
that’s up to you :wink: )


Cheers / Saludos,

Carlos E. R.
(from 13.1 x86_64 “Bottle” at Telcontar)

On Wed, 20 Aug 2014 13:15:06 +0000, Carlos E. R. wrote:

> The “non-oss” repo is rather small, and I don’t know of a document or
> link from the legal team where they describe, even briefly, why a
> package is oss nor not.

Logically, it seems that if the license is OSI-compliant (or possibly OSI-
compatible), then it would be in the oss repo.

Jim

Jim Henderson
openSUSE Forums Administrator
Forum Use Terms & Conditions at http://tinyurl.com/openSUSE-T-C

On 2014-08-21 04:12, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Aug 2014 13:15:06 +0000, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>
>> The “non-oss” repo is rather small, and I don’t know of a document or
>> link from the legal team where they describe, even briefly, why a
>> package is oss nor not.
>
> Logically, it seems that if the license is OSI-compliant (or possibly OSI-
> compatible), then it would be in the oss repo.

Yes, of course.

But I mean that the process of accepting or rejecting a package on
license grounds doesn’t happen openly. Now and then a package is missed,
you have to ask, and then somebody with osc access can find out that it
was removed because of “incompatible license”. But that is as far as we
can know, there is no document explaining those decisions.

Of course, I can guess that they are made by a team of lawyers, and
these people do not work on the open.


Cheers / Saludos,

Carlos E. R.
(from 13.1 x86_64 “Bottle” at Telcontar)

On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 02:25:06 +0000, Carlos E. R. wrote:

> But I mean that the process of accepting or rejecting a package on
> license grounds doesn’t happen openly.

Probably because it’s pretty clear-cut if the license isn’t OSI-approved.

Take POVRay, for example - while the project is slowly moving towards an
OSI license (as opposed to the POVRay license it’s currently licensed
under), it’s clearly not an OSI-approved license.

> Now and then a package is missed,
> you have to ask, and then somebody with osc access can find out that it
> was removed because of “incompatible license”. But that is as far as we
> can know, there is no document explaining those decisions.

Well, again, it’s a pretty clear-cut thing, IMHO.

> Of course, I can guess that they are made by a team of lawyers, and
> these people do not work on the open.

I don’t think it takes a lawyer to look at the list of OSI-approved
licenses and say “this software’s license is on the list” or “this
software’s license isn’t on the list.”

But I suppose you do think it’s that complicated, otherwise you wouldn’t
be having this conversation. :wink:

Jim


Jim Henderson
openSUSE Forums Administrator
Forum Use Terms & Conditions at http://tinyurl.com/openSUSE-T-C

On 2014-08-21 06:29, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 02:25:06 +0000, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>
>> But I mean that the process of accepting or rejecting a package on
>> license grounds doesn’t happen openly.
>
> Probably because it’s pretty clear-cut if the license isn’t OSI-approved.
>
> Take POVRay, for example - while the project is slowly moving towards an
> OSI license (as opposed to the POVRay license it’s currently licensed
> under), it’s clearly not an OSI-approved license.
>
>> Now and then a package is missed,
>> you have to ask, and then somebody with osc access can find out that it
>> was removed because of “incompatible license”. But that is as far as we
>> can know, there is no document explaining those decisions.
>
> Well, again, it’s a pretty clear-cut thing, IMHO.
>
>> Of course, I can guess that they are made by a team of lawyers, and
>> these people do not work on the open.
>
> I don’t think it takes a lawyer to look at the list of OSI-approved
> licenses and say “this software’s license is on the list” or “this
> software’s license isn’t on the list.”
>
> But I suppose you do think it’s that complicated, otherwise you wouldn’t
> be having this conversation. :wink:

No, you miss the point completely.

I’m not a lawyer. I don’t understand the license texts. I don’t know yet
what GPL means by reading at it, just what others tell me it means. Same
for most licenses. The only one I clearly understood was the “Turbo
Pascal no nonsense license” on 198x.

What I want is to have an accessible document, a log or something, that
documents what the SUSE legal team decides about any packages. Specially
when they reject a package, at least simply say “this package lilcense
is not compatible with our rules” or something of the sort - so that we
don’t have to ask in mail lists till somebody with a “suse” or “novell”
in their email address kindly digs out the information and tell us.
Sometimes the (incompatible) license is one written for that package,
not a standard one, so you can not even look up on a “compatibility
license table” if such a thing exists, so that it needs a lawyer to read
it and decide.

And all those decisions are secret. Somebody from SuSE told me that long
time ago, they can not publish what the legal team says. Basically
because we are not the “client” of those lawyers. SuSE is the client,
with a contract.


Cheers / Saludos,

Carlos E. R.
(from 13.1 x86_64 “Bottle” at Telcontar)

On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 20:58:06 +0000, Carlos E. R. wrote:

> What I want is to have an accessible document, a log or something, that
> documents what the SUSE legal team decides about any packages.

Well, then, propose that on the project mailing list. Seems like it
might be a good idea for those who don’t want to learn about what
constitutes an OSI-compliant license.

Jim


Jim Henderson
openSUSE Forums Administrator
Forum Use Terms & Conditions at http://tinyurl.com/openSUSE-T-C

On 2014-08-26 04:16, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 20:58:06 +0000, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>
>> What I want is to have an accessible document, a log or something, that
>> documents what the SUSE legal team decides about any packages.
>
> Well, then, propose that on the project mailing list. Seems like it
> might be a good idea for those who don’t want to learn about what
> constitutes an OSI-compliant license.

AFAIR, I did, long ago, which is why I know about some of the things I
mentioned here.


Cheers / Saludos,

Carlos E. R.
(from 13.1 x86_64 “Bottle” at Telcontar)