Thu Dec 18 12:53:19 CET 2003
KJK::Hyperion wrote:

"Open Source" is a
detail. Try to actually understand what are licenses 
about: just slapping labels may be easier, but is stupid. Software
licenses 
cover two aspects: use and redistribution (if sources are available and
the 
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 source
licenses, for 
example, allow unlimited use, limited distribution of the software and 
sources and limited use of the code

Now 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 software
is 
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 you felt warranted this. "Free to install on
computers that they **OWN**, and feel need the software installed on it." I do believe that is "USE", and not
"redistribution". "redistribution" would be if they went to their cousin's (sister's, brothers, whatever's) house, and
installed it there. In which case they would have redistributed the software 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 made available to the new recipient, since they are
granted the exact same rights as the one that distributed to them, and that they must in turn, pass those rights on to individuals they distribute to. I believe the GPL lays those terms out quite clearly, However, If I were to bundle software
under such a license, I would provide system documentation, and would provide a full copy of the GPL (and any other licenses that any other bundled software has), and a description of the terms (meaning that I would explicitly point out what you 'can' and 'cannot' do under the license, 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 (In addition to the probably
required set-up instructions) would be sufficient to get the attention of most ordinary users, and help to ensure that
THEY read and understand these same said licenses, and understand their repercussions. If however, they still
do not comply to the terms of such licenses, it would not be my responsibility legally, since *I* would have
conformed to the license agreement(s) to the letter by fulfilling all requirements 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'd
be 
harmless, is wrong and misleading.

I do realize this. The reason for incorporating a license, is to protect the
software and its authors from harm. The most common and prevalent wind for
'harm' in this case, would be the 'embrace and extend' method use by microsoft
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 is released
without sourcecode, OR, for buyware, it is released without proper payment, 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 public service.
But I was meaning that I would provide full (official & unchanged -w sourse)
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. The distinction
between 'Free' and "Free*" would be outlined in the documentation shipped
with such hypothetical units. Software bundled with the machines would
be carefully selected based on the criteria of their respective licenses.
Software with licenses prohibiting that form of redistribution would not
be bundled. As for 'Discount legal advice'--- I didn't mean to impose.
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 that people
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 not thread
properly... Hopefully this is now resolved... (damn yahoo.. oh well)...)

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos - Get your photo on the big screen in Times Square