Re: [ros-dev] Vote: Allow 3rd-party distribution of ROS through XDCC Bot.

[Steven Edwards]

Hi,
--- Mike Swanson <mikeonthecomputer(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>   Just put a trademark on the name but allow it to be
> used on
>  derivations on the circumstance that it clearly shows that it is not
>  _the_ ReactOS. 
I have looked in to this a bit with the legal council I have on retainer as part of the
ReactOS
Foundation work. I think it is around $250 to file in a state and around $1000 to file the
federal
paperwork. I will call the lawyer this week and get numbers and a timeframe on what it
would take
to make it happen.

Thanks
Steven



		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/

[Michael Trausch]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

Steven Edwards wrote:

>   Hi,
>  --- Mike Swanson <mikeonthecomputer(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>  
> >  Just put a trademark on the name but allow it to
> > be used on
> > derivations on the circumstance that it clearly shows that it is not
> > _the_ ReactOS. 
>  
>  
>  I have looked in to this a bit with the legal council I have on retainer as part of the
> ReactOS
>  Foundation work. I think it is around $250 to file in a state and around $1000 to file
> the federal
>  paperwork. I will call the lawyer this week and get numbers and a timeframe on what it
> would take
>  to make it happen.
>   
If you guys really wanted to, you could hold the trade mark and tell
people that they MUST come up with a different name for any
distribution where the ReactOS setup isn't exactly as it comes from
something like, say, SourceForge.  This way, someone could
distribute a ReactOS CD with the vanilla installer plus other
applications (e.g., Mozilla, Firefox, Thunderbird, Sunbird, a Jabber
client, WinPT, and other stuff, because we can).

Or, someone could do something like Dropline does with GNOME, but
call it something entirely different, and put in small print
somewhere that "the product is a deritive work of ReactOS" because
due to that and the license that ReactOS is, this would require the
source that makes it a deritive work to be published, as well, and
if I'm not mistaken, the user must be able to get the source in the
same format as the binary, so it would be easier for them to just
include everything all at once.

Just my two cents.

	Later,
	Mike

- --
Michael B. Trausch                               <fd0man(a)gmail.com>
Blog/Website: http://fd0man.chadeux.net/            AIM: MB Trausch
Phone: [phone]              FAX (US Only): 1-866-806-4647
===================================================================
Need computer or Linux work in Atlanta?      http://www.mbtcis.com/
Do you have PGP or GPG?  Key at pgp.mit.edu, Please Encrypt E-Mail!

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.1-nr1 (Windows 2000)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFCNWcAPXInbkqM7nwRA2AEAJ4qN8qcwGyLthcVbE+HTYX0WRf0VACfbCoC
> o+uq4ogveGa96gkbe46fcuc=
> =Qh2s
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Wesley Parish]

For what it's worth, that appears to be the decision taken by the FreeWin 
people - I downloaded the source rar file and found it was pretty much a 
ReactOS 0.2.0 release frozen, but with some other things incorporated.

They were all very upfront about deriving it too, so that is encouraging, and 
they haven't changed the license terms.

I just hope they see fit to make themselves known to us and feed back 
enhancements and bug-fixes.

Wesley Parish

[ros-dev] FreeWin
 Date: Yesterday 10:42:06
 From: ea <ea(a)iol.it>  (MMS)
 To: ReactOS Development List <ros-dev(a)reactos.com>
 Reply to: ea(a)reactos.com, ReactOS Development List <ros-dev(a)reactos.com>
 
This one seems a derivative work of ros. Is it already known?
http://gro.clinux.org/projects/freewin

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 23:27, Michael Trausch wrote:
>   Steven Edwards wrote:
> >   Hi,
> >
> >  --- Mike Swanson <mikeonthecomputer(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > >  Just put a trademark on the name but allow it to
> > > be used on
> > > derivations on the circumstance that it clearly shows that it is not
> > > _the_ ReactOS. 
> >  I have looked in to this a bit with the legal council I have on retainer
> >  as part of the ReactOS Foundation work. I think it is around $250 to file
> >  in a state and around $1000 to file the federal paperwork. I will call
> >  the lawyer this week and get numbers and a timeframe on what it would
> >  take to make it happen. 
>  If you guys really wanted to, you could hold the trade mark and tell
>  people that they MUST come up with a different name for any
>  distribution where the ReactOS setup isn't exactly as it comes from
>  something like, say, SourceForge.  This way, someone could
>  distribute a ReactOS CD with the vanilla installer plus other
>  applications (e.g., Mozilla, Firefox, Thunderbird, Sunbird, a Jabber
>  client, WinPT, and other stuff, because we can).
>
>  Or, someone could do something like Dropline does with GNOME, but
>  call it something entirely different, and put in small print
>  somewhere that "the product is a deritive work of ReactOS" because
>  due to that and the license that ReactOS is, this would require the
>  source that makes it a deritive work to be published, as well, and
>  if I'm not mistaken, the user must be able to get the source in the
>  same format as the binary, so it would be easier for them to just
>  include everything all at once.
>
>  Just my two cents.
>
>  	Later,
>  	Mike 
-- 
Clinersterton beademung, with all of love - RIP James Blish
-----
Mau e ki, he aha te mea nui?
You ask, what is the most important thing?
Maku e ki, he tangata, he tangata, he tangata.
I reply, it is people, it is people, it is people.

[Royce Mitchell III]

Wesley Parish wrote:

>  For what it's worth, that appears to be the
> decision taken by the FreeWin 
> people - I downloaded the source rar file and found it was pretty much a 
> ReactOS 0.2.0 release frozen, but with some other things incorporated.
>
> They were all very upfront about deriving it too, so that is encouraging, and 
> they haven't changed the license terms.
>
>   
>  
Their web page says it's LGPL in one place. To my knowledge you can't 
GPL->LGPL