17 Dec
2003
17 Dec
'03
2:35 p.m.
well as practically signing away your firstborn child
in order to be eligable.)
Sounds illegal; hmm... possibly a new way to sue M$? There seem to be
so many... ;-)
So, Say if this person were to have ROS installed
stock, with various other Open Source packages, like
OpenOffice (there is a win32 port), and perhaps some
open sourced entertainment packages, as well as a
collection of the sources for such applications
distributed on CD-Rom media (to maintain compliance
with GPL), and the associated ReadMe's with each
package, indicating where to go for more information
about individual packages- Would this strategy be on
the "Up and up"?
Sure.
The reason being, that the most costly part of any
modern 'win32' based computer is its operating system.
By eliminating a Windoze license, you EASILY shave off
300$ from the computer's price. So, your 500$
cheapskate computer is now a 200$ cheapskate
computer--
Interesting. I knew it was quite a bit, but I didn't realize it was
quite *that* much.
From an
entrepreneur's viewpoint, this means an
increase in potential sales, so long as
win32
compatability is stable and reliable. From an ROS
point of view, it is a potential means of releasing
the OS on a public venue. Especially if such systems
are released at a heavy consumer shopping month, like
the Christmas season. Linux doesnt seem to perform
well in the normal 'home end user' category, but I
suspect ROS *will*. 1) The system should not have buyware installed, but
may come bundled with buyware on a second CD that the
Good idea to clearly mark those programs; but I don't think there is
anything to prevent commercial software from being preinstalled
alongside Linux, unless the licenses of the commercial software have
some strange clause to prohibit this. (The GPL does not; otherwise
there could be no commerical software for Linux?)
4) ROS, and any/all other open sourced products must
not be 'sold', but reimbursement charges (copying, or
other expenses for making products and sources
available) are applicable within reason.
The GPL explicitly allows you to sell GPLed software, as long as the
licensing terms are maintained; however, this would be counter to your
purpose, and not consistently useful, as those users could then take
the software and give away copies for free... (or just d/l from the
'net to begin with).
it be legitimate to provide the ROS SDK along with
corporate purchased system units? Providing a 'free'
Why not? Practically all Linux distros come with one already. This is
not uncommon on the commercial side, either -- MacOS X includes a very
nice , easily installed set of development tools on a second CD that
comes with the OS. (Some of these tools are open-source, BTW, along
with a substantial portion of MacOS X itself...)
=====
=======
Frank D. Engel, Jr.
Modify the equilibrium of the vertically-oriented particle decelerator to result in the
reestablishment of its resistance to counterproductive atmospheric penetration.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree