Someday ROS will be a stable alternative to using M$ windows- and I have some questions.
I personally think ROS would be extremely attractive to small system builders and retailers, since M$'s business model is EXTREMELY restrictive to such ventures- (your local computer shop, who cannot afford a massive licensing scheme like what M$ perfers.)
It is extremely difficult for a computer entrepreneur to become a legitimate "Microsoft certified system builder", and get their deployment kits, and get licensed redistribution packages at reasonable prices that such an entrepreneur can afford. (one must go through a bunch of hoops and 'certification exams', as well as practically signing away your firstborn child in order to be eligable.)
Because of these limitations, ROS would be VERY VERY appealing to small system builders in this marketing venue- I am just curious what the legalese would be for somebody considering it. (To be honest, I have been considering starting up such a venture, but the licensing model from M$ is too prohibitive.)
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"?
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-- (A common gripe from the Linux Community is that commercial PCs ship with a Windows license, that linux users dont want or need. There have been petitions to major system builders to provide refunds for these windows licenses. However, because these large providers have practically sold their souls to M$, they cannot sell computers without that license, and are quite unwilling to refund the license. Small retailers however, are not encumbered by such restrictions, and would in fact, PROFIT by not being FORCED into such licensing models.)
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*.
I realise that it will be some time before ROS is ready for distribution in this form, but I am a patient person- I am just wanting the full scoop, so I can get all my ducks in a row.
So far, this is what I understand must be done if I were to build and sell computers preloaded with ROS, and other OpenSource software:
1) The system should not have buyware installed, but may come bundled with buyware on a second CD that the User may install at their whim. Such a CD should be carefully and CLEARLY marked, so it is not confused with Open Source software.
2) The GPL license, and all other licenses pertaining to ROS, and any other OpenSource software packages must be supplied in plain view to the user of ROS and such packages. (like, putting the licenses and the package's readme's in the start menu along with same said applications, and placing a link on the desktop of the ROS installed machine to ROS's license and readme, where it is in plain and unobstructed view.)
3) The source code to such products must be made available, and contact information for project maintaners should be provided. Media with authentic installers, and full documentation should also be provided. (So that the user can re-install any software later, including a ROS install CD. The user should be made aware that it is perfectly legal for them to use that CD to install ROS on any machine they own, and feel it is needed on, and that the same applies to all other Open source software bundled with the unit.)
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.
I also understand that you are attempting to create an ROS SDK- Since many mid-level businesses purchase systems from local retailers to reduce overhead, would it be legitimate to provide the ROS SDK along with corporate purchased system units? Providing a 'free' SDK would be very attractive to some organisations seeking to do in-house software development, and could be a potential selling point. (especially if programs produced using the ROS SDK work fine under existing windows platforms, which may allready be in service at said corporation.)
I would really like this information. Any and all feedback will be very much welcome.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. http://photos.yahoo.com/
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*.
Linux itself is perfectly capable of performing well in the home. The difficulty is in that, while there are some very good desktop environments available, which make usage nice and simple, and while there are some very good applications available for Linux, the two are rarely designed to go together...
- 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?)
- 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
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 06:35:35AM -0800, Frank D. Engel, Jr. wrote:
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.
Well, windows itself (XP Home) is about $100, but with Office it's around $300.
- 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).
Well, it would be nice to have some buyable reactos as well. In a box, with a manual. Else it stays an OS for nerds. If it ain't in the stores, people won't know it. Price could be as little as $10-$25. (of course a freely downloadable version could easily coexist, but some people just like to buy stuff).
Mark
At 11.42 17/12/2003, you wrote:
- The system should not have buyware installed,
No such restriction exists, AFAIK
but may come bundled with buyware on a second CD that the User may install at their whim. Such a CD should be carefully and CLEARLY marked, so it is not confused with Open Source software.
"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
The user should be made aware that it is perfectly legal for them to use that CD to install ROS on any machine they own, and feel it is needed on, and that the same applies to all other Open source software bundled with the unit.)
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. 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
-
Frank D. Engel, Jr. -
KJK::Hyperion -
Mark IJbema -
Wierd Wierd