26 Dec
2003
26 Dec
'03
12:56 p.m.
Thu Dec 18 12:53:19 CET 2003
KJK::Hyperion wrote:
"Open Source" is adetail. Try to actually understand what are licenses about:
just slapping labels may be easier, but is stupid. Softwarelicenses cover two aspects: use
and redistribution (if sources are available andthe license treats them differently, also
add: use of code and redistribution of code. Also note that imposing restrictions on the
use - e.g. "no commercial use" - may or may not be legal). Most open
sourcelicenses, for example, allow unlimited use, limited distribution of the software and
sources and limited use of the codeNow try to explain, from the user's point of view,
what's the difference between a software to which he's granted unlimited use and
limited distribution (e.g. "Redistribution is free, as long as the softwareis
unchanged") but not source code access and one to which he's granted unlimited
use, limited distribution (e.g. "Redistribution is free,as long as source code is
also offered") and limited source code access
I believe that was covered by what I said prior to the statement that youfelt warranted
this. "Free to install on
computers that they **OWN**, and feel need the software installed onit." I do believe
that is "USE", and not
"redistribution". "redistribution" would be ifthey went to their
cousin's (sister's, brothers, whatever's) house, and
installed it there. In which case they would have redistributed thesoftware without
conforming to the terms of the
license agreement (In this case, ROS being under the GNU Public License,which requires
that the software contain
an unchanged version of the GPL license, an that source must be madeavailable to the new
recipient, since they are
granted the exact same rights as the one that distributed to them, andthat they must in
turn, pass those rights on to individuals theydistribute to. I believe the GPL lays those
terms out quiteclearly, However, If I were to bundle software
under such a license, I would provide system documentation, and wouldprovide a full copy
of the GPL (and any other licenses that any otherbundled software has), and a description
of the terms (meaning that Iwould explicitly point out what you 'can' and
'cannot' do under thelicense, and what the repercussions of violation are (In case
of GPL,
termination of rights to use, distribute, or modify such software.)within such system
documentation.
I believe having the great big words "READ THIS FIRST!IMPORTANT LEGAL INFORMATION
INSIDE!" on the system documentation,which contains the licenses, and descriptions of
the licenses (Inaddition to the probably
required set-up instructions) would be sufficient to get the attention ofmost ordinary
users, and help to ensure that
THEY read and understand these same said licenses, and understand theirrepercussions. If
however, they still
do not comply to the terms of such licenses, it would not be myresponsibility legally,
since *I* would have
conformed to the license agreement(s) to the letter by fulfilling allrequirements and
guidelines mentioned in said
license agreement(s).
(phew- what a mouthful!)
It's not that easy.Redistribution is rarely free - in fact, limiting redistribution is
*the* point of most licenses. The idea that open source developers are nice and forgiving
and won't sue, and if they sued they'dbe harmless, is wrong and misleading.
I do realize this. The reason for incorporating a license, is to protectthe
software and its authors from harm. The most common and prevalent windfor
'harm' in this case, would be the 'embrace and extend' method use
bymicrosoft
or the release of software in ways that its authors feel inappropriate.(IE,
it is released changed, and the user isn't informed of such- Or, it isreleased
without sourcecode, OR, for buyware, it is released without properpayment, etc.)
The "free" in"free software" refers to the use: redistribution
certainly isn't, and telling ignorant people that it is just because you feel like a
freaking guerrilla fighting against a greater evil is stupid and harms your own cause.
Repeat with me: open source isn't a free coupon ticket for a 20% discount on legal
knowledge
I know. The Free in "Free Software" means free use, as a publicservice.
But I was meaning that I would provide full (official & unchanged -wsourse)
releases, and provide the licenses in plain and clear view,and would do
so for no monetary cost--aka 'free' in the more general term. Thedistinction
between 'Free' and "Free*" would be outlined in thedocumentation
shipped
with such hypothetical units. Software bundled with the machineswould
be carefully selected based on the criteria of their respectivelicenses.
Software with licenses prohibiting that form of redistribution wouldnot
be bundled. As for 'Discount legal advice'--- I didn't mean toimpose.
I just felt it would be the smartest decision to simply ASK the people
who make ROS for guidelines on redistribution, since there might be
'preferred' methods and conditions. ----Or would you rather thatpeople
just do it without asking first?
(PS, sorry about the lateness of this reply, I decided to hold off,until
I had put my finger on the problem that was causing my posts to notthread
properly... Hopefully this is now resolved... (damn yahoo.. ohwell)...)
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos - Get your photo on the big screen in Times Square