Ben Collins wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 19, 2002 at 07:28:43PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
>>Larry McVoy wrote:
>>
>>>I have no problem with the GPL, I think it's a fine license if your
>>>goal is to have things done out in the open with no hoarding. A great
>>>license, in fact. But I have a big problem with this constant harping
>>>on the term "freedom". The GPL absolutely positively does not grant me
>>>all the rights I want, it took substantial portions of my freedom away.
>>>I am not free to use GPL source in any way I wish and neither is anyone
>>>else.
>>>
>>>I'm OK with you having a free license, go make one. I'm OK with you
>>>sticking with the GPL, but then you get admit that it is not a free
>>>license and stop kidding yourself and others.
>>
>>
>>At the potential cost of getting flamed, I think it is worth pointing
>>out that the FSF's copyright assignment policy on several of their
>>projects is _very_ anti-freedom. You are required to relinquish all
>>your rights to your contributions, in exchange for the hope that the FSF
>>will protect them.
>
>
> Jeff, they don't force you, they require it to be turned over to them
> for inclusion in the FSF proper upstream source. Also, it doesn't mean
> that you lose your rights to the original piece. You can still reuse
> your own source as the copyright owner.
The whole point of the copyright assignment is that FSF becomes
copyright owner.
This is so that Jeff Garzik cannot be strongarmed into changing the
license on his code, or some other anti-software-freedom tactic levied
against me in the future. In theory, the FSF as an organization will
protect the rights of the software when I might weaken and give in.
But in exchange for that protection, you are willingly giving up your
rights as copyright owner... Less freedom for [hopefully] better
protection. Just like everything in life, it's a tradeoff... :)
Jeff
>
> The whole point of the copyright assignment is that FSF becomes
> copyright owner.
>
> This is so that Jeff Garzik cannot be strongarmed into changing the
> license on his code, or some other anti-software-freedom tactic levied
> against me in the future. In theory, the FSF as an organization will
> protect the rights of the software when I might weaken and give in.
>
> But in exchange for that protection, you are willingly giving up your
> rights as copyright owner... Less freedom for [hopefully] better
> protection. Just like everything in life, it's a tradeoff... :)
>
I disagree. I don't see anything in the copyright assignment (and I have
signed a few for the FSF) that says I don't retain original copyright
for my work.
--
Debian - http://www.debian.org/
Linux 1394 - http://www.linux1394.org/
Subversion - http://subversion.tigris.org/
Deqo - http://www.deqo.com/
On Sun, 2002-10-20 at 13:34, Ben Collins wrote:
> I disagree. I don't see anything in the copyright assignment (and I have
> signed a few for the FSF) that says I don't retain original copyright
> for my work.
That is only because they relicense the work back to you (and its GPLed
you have a lot of freedom with it anyhow).
When you sign over your copyright, you relinquish it. The FSF now has
the copyright on your work and you do not.
Robert Love
Le dim 20/10/2002 ? 21:15, Robert Love a ?crit :
> On Sun, 2002-10-20 at 13:34, Ben Collins wrote:
>
> > I disagree. I don't see anything in the copyright assignment (and I have
> > signed a few for the FSF) that says I don't retain original copyright
> > for my work.
>
> That is only because they relicense the work back to you (and its GPLed
> you have a lot of freedom with it anyhow).
>
> When you sign over your copyright, you relinquish it. The FSF now has
> the copyright on your work and you do not.
You're plain wrong.
You both have the copyright on your work.
Xav
On Sun, 2002-10-20 at 17:42, Xavier Bestel wrote:
> You're plain wrong.
>
> You both have the copyright on your work.
It is called copyright _assignment_ for a reason. How the hell are two
people supposed to simultaneously own a copyright on the same work?
The assignment says (I quote) "I hereby transfer... my entire right,
title, and interest (including all rights under copyright)... in my
program".
Robert Love
Le dim 20/10/2002 ? 23:51, Robert Love a ?crit :
> On Sun, 2002-10-20 at 17:42, Xavier Bestel wrote:
>
> > You're plain wrong.
> >
> > You both have the copyright on your work.
>
> It is called copyright _assignment_ for a reason. How the hell are two
> people supposed to simultaneously own a copyright on the same work?
>
> The assignment says (I quote) "I hereby transfer... my entire right,
> title, and interest (including all rights under copyright)... in my
> program".
Last time I looked, it wasn't possible to relinquish copyright on your
own work, no matter what you sign. Maybe it's not like that in all
countries, after all.
On Sun, 2002-10-20 at 18:20, Xavier Bestel wrote:
> Last time I looked, it wasn't possible to relinquish copyright on your
> own work, no matter what you sign. Maybe it's not like that in all
> countries, after all.
It is certainly not like that in the United States and in most European
countries.
For example, think of software written for any commercial software
developer. Or, when you write a book, you sign the rights over to a
publisher.. etc. etc.
Copyright assignment is a normal part of the copyright process.
Robert Love
On Sun, 20 Oct 2002, Ben Collins wrote:
> > But in exchange for that protection, you are willingly giving up your
> > rights as copyright owner... Less freedom for [hopefully] better
> > protection. Just like everything in life, it's a tradeoff... :)
>
> I disagree. I don't see anything in the copyright assignment (and I have
> signed a few for the FSF) that says I don't retain original copyright
> for my work.
I've heard this argument about BSD-licensed software, too.
"So what if somebody makes a commercial version ?
The free version will still be available..."
Rik
--
Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH".
http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/
Current spamtrap: <a href=mailto:"[email protected]">[email protected]</a>
On Sunday, October 20, 2002, at 05:42 PM, Xavier Bestel wrote:
> Le dim 20/10/2002 ? 21:15, Robert Love a ?crit :
>> On Sun, 2002-10-20 at 13:34, Ben Collins wrote:
>>
>>> I disagree. I don't see anything in the copyright assignment (and I
>>> have
>>> signed a few for the FSF) that says I don't retain original copyright
>>> for my work.
>>
>> That is only because they relicense the work back to you (and its
>> GPLed
>> you have a lot of freedom with it anyhow).
>>
>> When you sign over your copyright, you relinquish it. The FSF now has
>> the copyright on your work and you do not.
>
> You're plain wrong.
>
> You both have the copyright on your work.
No, you don't.
2+ people having copyrights on something only occurs when you have
joint authorship (or rare partial transfers).
In this case, what we have is the a transfer of copyright from you, to
the FSF ("my entire right, title, and interest (including all rights
under copyright))"
It's like transferring rights to real property (in most countries, you
can view copyright as an object of property in trying to determine what
you can do with it)
When rights are transferred to another party, the original author
doesn't get any residual rights unless these are expressly reserved as
a "grant back".
You are no longer the owner of the copy right.
--Dan
On Sunday, October 20, 2002, at 05:51 PM, Robert Love wrote:
> On Sun, 2002-10-20 at 17:42, Xavier Bestel wrote:
>
>> You're plain wrong.
>>
>> You both have the copyright on your work.
>
> It is called copyright _assignment_ for a reason. How the hell are two
> people supposed to simultaneously own a copyright on the same work?
>
Joint authorship.
"The authors of a joint work are co-owners of copyright in the work"
(17 USC ?201(a)).
IOW They each own a 100% copyright in the work.
Leads to odd situations of course, since one author can do whatever
they like with the work without any permission from the other authors,
etc.
--Dan
On 21 Oct 2002, Xavier Bestel wrote:
> Le dim 20/10/2002 ? 23:51, Robert Love a ?crit :
> > The assignment says (I quote) "I hereby transfer... my entire right,
> > title, and interest (including all rights under copyright)... in my
> > program".
>
> Last time I looked, it wasn't possible to relinquish copyright on your
> own work, no matter what you sign. Maybe it's not like that in all
> countries, after all.
Germany (and France, judging from your words) have laws that
guarantee that the creator of a work keeps copyright on the
work. At least, part of the copyright cannot be signed over
to other people or organisations.
I wonder if this means the FSF can't accept contributions
from these countries, or if they've found some weasel-words
around the legislation of those countries...
Rik
--
Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH".
http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/
Current spamtrap: <a href=mailto:"[email protected]">[email protected]</a>
On 20 Oct 2002, Robert Love wrote:
> On Sun, 2002-10-20 at 18:52, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, October 20, 2002, at 05:51 PM, Robert Love wrote:
> >
> > > It is called copyright _assignment_ for a reason. How the hell are two
> > > people supposed to simultaneously own a copyright on the same work?
> > >
> > Joint authorship.
>
> The FSF Copyright Assignment is not joint authorship, it is copyright
> assignment. They alone possess the work's copyright.
Of course.
But you asked "How the hell are two people supposed to simultaneously own
a copyright on the same work?"
The answer is "Joint authorship".
On Sun, 2002-10-20 at 18:52, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On Sunday, October 20, 2002, at 05:51 PM, Robert Love wrote:
>
> > It is called copyright _assignment_ for a reason. How the hell are two
> > people supposed to simultaneously own a copyright on the same work?
> >
> Joint authorship.
The FSF Copyright Assignment is not joint authorship, it is copyright
assignment. They alone possess the work's copyright.
Robert Love
On Sun, 20 Oct 2002, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 20, 2002 at 06:52:58PM -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, October 20, 2002, at 05:51 PM, Robert Love wrote:
> >
> > >On Sun, 2002-10-20 at 17:42, Xavier Bestel wrote:
> > >
> > >>You're plain wrong.
> > >>
> > >>You both have the copyright on your work.
> > >
> > >It is called copyright _assignment_ for a reason. How the hell are two
> > >people supposed to simultaneously own a copyright on the same work?
> > >
> > Joint authorship.
> > "The authors of a joint work are co-owners of copyright in the work"
> > (17 USC ?201(a)).
> > IOW They each own a 100% copyright in the work.
> > Leads to odd situations of course, since one author can do whatever
> > they like with the work without any permission from the other authors,
> > etc.
>
> Think of this, if you pay $1,000,000 to the OpenGroup, you can purchase
> the source to DCE/DFS and do whatever the hell you want with it.
This is a license, not a transfer of copyright.
--Dan
On Sun, Oct 20, 2002 at 06:52:58PM -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>
> On Sunday, October 20, 2002, at 05:51 PM, Robert Love wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 2002-10-20 at 17:42, Xavier Bestel wrote:
> >
> >>You're plain wrong.
> >>
> >>You both have the copyright on your work.
> >
> >It is called copyright _assignment_ for a reason. How the hell are two
> >people supposed to simultaneously own a copyright on the same work?
> >
> Joint authorship.
> "The authors of a joint work are co-owners of copyright in the work"
> (17 USC ?201(a)).
> IOW They each own a 100% copyright in the work.
> Leads to odd situations of course, since one author can do whatever
> they like with the work without any permission from the other authors,
> etc.
Think of this, if you pay $1,000,000 to the OpenGroup, you can purchase
the source to DCE/DFS and do whatever the hell you want with it.
That doesn't relinquish the OpenGroup's copyright, so they can sell as
many copies of the source as they want, nor would it relinquish IBM's
copyright to Transarc's source (who also purchased it from the
opengroup).
--
Debian - http://www.debian.org/
Linux 1394 - http://www.linux1394.org/
Subversion - http://subversion.tigris.org/
Deqo - http://www.deqo.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 08:47, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> 2+ people having copyrights on something only occurs when you have
> joint authorship (or rare partial transfers).
> In this case, what we have is the a transfer of copyright from you, to
> the FSF ("my entire right, title, and interest (including all rights
> under copyright))"
> It's like transferring rights to real property (in most countries, you
> can view copyright as an object of property in trying to determine what
> you can do with it)
> When rights are transferred to another party, the original author
> doesn't get any residual rights unless these are expressly reserved as
> a "grant back".
> You are no longer the owner of the copy right.
Which is the whole point of the FSF copyright assignment. They don't want you
to relicense it under some other terms. Under the GPL it doesn't matter who
owns the copyright, so the only point of the copyright assignment is to
reduce _your_ rights.
I understand why the FSF want to do this (imagine a major free-software
producer in financial trouble, and a big product (eg GCC and binutils) that
they could sell to a closed-source vendor). I just don't plan to do this
myself.
Brad
- --
http://linux.conf.au. 22-25Jan2003. Perth, Aust. I'm registered. Are you?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE9szOCW6pHgIdAuOMRAkRsAKCjuMSaCbzWKYJYfNbGL0wj60co4ACdENXK
xDDNeReSGOAOpT02TbtB7B0=
=BI1d
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hi,
On Sun, 20 Oct 2002, Rik van Riel wrote:
> I wonder if this means the FSF can't accept contributions
> from these countries, or if they've found some weasel-words
> around the legislation of those countries...
Do you have any specific reason to believe that the FSF needs to "weasel"
around something or do you badmouth and insult other people just for fun?
bye, Roman
On Sunday 20 October 2002 17:53, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On 21 Oct 2002, Xavier Bestel wrote:
> > Le dim 20/10/2002 ? 23:51, Robert Love a ?crit :
> > > The assignment says (I quote) "I hereby transfer... my entire right,
> > > title, and interest (including all rights under copyright)... in my
> > > program".
> >
> > Last time I looked, it wasn't possible to relinquish copyright on your
> > own work, no matter what you sign. Maybe it's not like that in all
> > countries, after all.
>
> Germany (and France, judging from your words) have laws that
> guarantee that the creator of a work keeps copyright on the
> work. At least, part of the copyright cannot be signed over
> to other people or organisations.
>
> I wonder if this means the FSF can't accept contributions
> from these countries, or if they've found some weasel-words
> around the legislation of those countries...
>
> Rik
1) The reason the FSF wanted people to sign over their copyrights was so
they'd have unassailable standing in court to defend them if sued. (The
copyrightholder is the one who gets to sue to enforce the copyright.)
2) It's possible to have joint copyrights, or more than one copyright on a
work. Think a song written by one person, sung by another, with backup
vocals and session musicians, each of whom has a copyright on their
performance. (This is why movies get everybody to sign a release up front,
and why theatrical performances of things like "cats" where they don't do
this up-front are basically never videotaped and shown on television, no
matter successful they wind up being.)
3) The creator of a work doesn't always get the copyright, at least in the US.
There's something called "work for hire", which means if somebody else
commisioned the work (paid you to do it, and asked you to do it, and you were
acting as their employee, etc), they get the copyright rather than you.
(Usually your contract has some variant of copyright assignment anyway just
to be safe.)
4) A work can be dual licensed. A license is a grant of permission from the
copyright holder delegating the rights reserved by the copyright, such as the
ability to make copies. The person the law reserves those rights to can
grant permission multiple times, to different people or overlapping groups of
people, under different terms, etc...
Hit google and look for "copyright law faq", the first few hits are good.
Some are little out of date (the faqs.org one is from january 94, predating
the DMCA and such, but still a great primer on the basics).
Rob
On Sunday 20 October 2002 18:04, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On 20 Oct 2002, Robert Love wrote:
> > On Sun, 2002-10-20 at 18:52, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> > > On Sunday, October 20, 2002, at 05:51 PM, Robert Love wrote:
> > > > It is called copyright _assignment_ for a reason. How the hell are
> > > > two people supposed to simultaneously own a copyright on the same
> > > > work?
> > >
> > > Joint authorship.
> >
> > The FSF Copyright Assignment is not joint authorship, it is copyright
> > assignment. They alone possess the work's copyright.
>
> Of course.
> But you asked "How the hell are two people supposed to simultaneously own
> a copyright on the same work?"
> The answer is "Joint authorship".
An analogous legal concept, for those of you who have taken a community
college business law course (and if you haven't, it might be a good idea), is
the partnership. See "joint and several liability". (There's a reason they
invented the corporation...)
As far as I understand, joint authorship does not apply to the linux kernel
because the contributors are operating under a license to an existing work
rather than an up-front collaboration between partners to produce a specific
good. (Joint authorship pretty much happens up-front.) The fact the
contributors largely don't know each other, and that patches are discrete
entities which may be individually tracked (and thus individually owned),
work in here too.
It's more like designing and manufacturing spider man collector cups. The
drawing on the cup is a new copyrightable item, but the character being
portrayed is a licensed entity. A license to put your own drawing of
spider-man on a plastic cup doesn't give you the right to turn around and
stick that drawing on pajamas and bath towels, even though it's your drawing
which you have a copyright on. In this kind of collaboration, you must have
compatable licenses for the components...
I am not, of course, a lawyer. :)
Rob
Le lun 21/10/2002 ? 00:51, Brad Hards a ?crit :
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 08:47, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>
> > 2+ people having copyrights on something only occurs when you have
> > joint authorship (or rare partial transfers).
> > In this case, what we have is the a transfer of copyright from you, to
> > the FSF ("my entire right, title, and interest (including all rights
> > under copyright))"
> > It's like transferring rights to real property (in most countries, you
> > can view copyright as an object of property in trying to determine what
> > you can do with it)
> > When rights are transferred to another party, the original author
> > doesn't get any residual rights unless these are expressly reserved as
> > a "grant back".
> > You are no longer the owner of the copy right.
> Which is the whole point of the FSF copyright assignment. They don't want you
> to relicense it under some other terms. Under the GPL it doesn't matter who
> owns the copyright, so the only point of the copyright assignment is to
> reduce _your_ rights.
But in the copyright assignment request, the FSF states:
" However, upon thirty days` prior written notice, the Foundation
agrees to grant me non-exclusive rights to use the program as I see
fit; (and the Foundation shall also own similar non-exclusive rights)."
Doesn't this mean that the author still has copyrights on his work,
provided he tells the FSF within one month ?
On Sun, 20 Oct 2002, Rob Landley wrote:
> On Sunday 20 October 2002 17:53, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > Germany (and France, judging from your words) have laws that
> > guarantee that the creator of a work keeps copyright on the
> > work. At least, part of the copyright cannot be signed over
> > to other people or organisations.
> 3) The creator of a work doesn't always get the copyright, at least in
> the US.
Please see above. It's possible the FSF copyright assignment
just can't be legal in some countries.
Rik
--
Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH".
http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/
Current spamtrap: <a href=mailto:"[email protected]">[email protected]</a>
On Monday, October 21, 2002, at 03:51 AM, Xavier Bestel wrote:
> Le lun 21/10/2002 ? 00:51, Brad Hards a ?crit :
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 08:47, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>>
>>> 2+ people having copyrights on something only occurs when you have
>>> joint authorship (or rare partial transfers).
>>> In this case, what we have is the a transfer of copyright from you,
>>> to
>>> the FSF ("my entire right, title, and interest (including all rights
>>> under copyright))"
>>> It's like transferring rights to real property (in most countries,
>>> you
>>> can view copyright as an object of property in trying to determine
>>> what
>>> you can do with it)
>>> When rights are transferred to another party, the original author
>>> doesn't get any residual rights unless these are expressly reserved
>>> as
>>> a "grant back".
>>> You are no longer the owner of the copy right.
>> Which is the whole point of the FSF copyright assignment. They don't
>> want you
>> to relicense it under some other terms. Under the GPL it doesn't
>> matter who
>> owns the copyright, so the only point of the copyright assignment is
>> to
>> reduce _your_ rights.
>
> But in the copyright assignment request, the FSF states:
>
> " However, upon thirty days` prior written notice, the Foundation
> agrees to grant me non-exclusive rights to use the program as I see
> fit; (and the Foundation shall also own similar non-exclusive rights)."
>
> Doesn't this mean that the author still has copyrights on his work,
> provided he tells the FSF within one month ?
Nope.
It means within 30 days of you giving them notice, they'll give you a
license to do whatever you want with your stuff in terms of *use*. They
aren't giving you back *ownership*.
It's not a copyright transfer, it's a license. It gives you much the
same rights, but you don't get the legal protection remedies and
whatnot that are in the copyright statute.
They'd have to reassign copyright back to you to get it.
Copyright transfers must be explicit, and in writing (mumble mumble as
with all of law, there are a few small exceptions mumble mumble).
So if it doesn't look like a copyright assignment, and you can't tell
if it is one or not, it's not one.
--Dan
On Monday, October 21, 2002, at 10:33 AM, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Oct 2002, Rob Landley wrote:
>> On Sunday 20 October 2002 17:53, Rik van Riel wrote:
>
>>> Germany (and France, judging from your words) have laws that
>>> guarantee that the creator of a work keeps copyright on the
>>> work. At least, part of the copyright cannot be signed over
>>> to other people or organisations.
>
>> 3) The creator of a work doesn't always get the copyright, at least in
>> the US.
>
> Please see above. It's possible the FSF copyright assignment
> just can't be legal in some countries.
>
Possibly, but as a contract, it doesn't matter (unless these other
countries don't do promissory estoppel. AFAIK from a google search,
they do).
Even if the contract is invalid, if the FSF relies on the promise of
rights in the contract to its detriment (IE are sued by the author for
infringement or something), the promise will be enforced (to avoid
injustice).
For an plain english description of what promissory estoppel is, see
http://facstaff.gallaudet.edu/marshall.wick/bus447/
promissory_estoppel.html
It's a bit more than that, but that's the general idea.
--Dan
On Sun, Oct 20, 2002 at 08:53:09PM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote:
> Germany (and France, judging from your words) have laws that
> guarantee that the creator of a work keeps copyright on the
> work.
What is called "copyright" in the US is Urheberrechte (authors
rights) in Germany. It conceptually differs from US copyright,
as it not only includes Vervielfaeltigungsrechte (copy and use
rights) but Autorpersoenlichkeitsrechte (author personality
rights) as well. German law allows the transfer of copy and use
rights, but it completely forbids to give up author personality
rights.
Author personality rights include rights to being named as an
author of a work, rights to forbid entstellende Modifikationen
(defacing modifications?) and for some types of work that cannot
be reproduced even the right of the author to access (visit) the
work.
German law also limits copy and use rights in certain more
esoteric cases.
Kristian
On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 12:20:07AM +0200, Xavier Bestel wrote:
> Le dim 20/10/2002 ? 23:51, Robert Love a ?crit :
> > On Sun, 2002-10-20 at 17:42, Xavier Bestel wrote:
> >
> > > You're plain wrong.
> > >
> > > You both have the copyright on your work.
> >
> > It is called copyright _assignment_ for a reason. How the hell are two
> > people supposed to simultaneously own a copyright on the same work?
> >
> > The assignment says (I quote) "I hereby transfer... my entire right,
> > title, and interest (including all rights under copyright)... in my
> > program".
>
> Last time I looked, it wasn't possible to relinquish copyright on your
> own work, no matter what you sign. Maybe it's not like that in all
> countries, after all.
It's not possible in Europe (most of it), but easily possible in the US.
--
Vojtech Pavlik
SuSE Labs
On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 12:33:54PM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Oct 2002, Rob Landley wrote:
> > On Sunday 20 October 2002 17:53, Rik van Riel wrote:
>
> > > Germany (and France, judging from your words) have laws that
> > > guarantee that the creator of a work keeps copyright on the
> > > work. At least, part of the copyright cannot be signed over
> > > to other people or organisations.
>
> > 3) The creator of a work doesn't always get the copyright, at least in
> > the US.
>
> Please see above. It's possible the FSF copyright assignment
> just can't be legal in some countries.
Even the GNU GPL isn't legally valid in some countries. Czech Republic,
where I'm from is an example - for a license agreement like this, both
parties (the author and the user) have to be at least notified, and if
they are not, the agreement is invalid. This is a quite understandable
law, but doesn't work with the GPL unless you always contact all the
authors.
--
Vojtech Pavlik
SuSE Labs