Just a curiosity-- ROS redistribution legalities

[Wierd Wierd]

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/

[Frank D. Engel, Jr.]

>   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...

>   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

[Mark IJbema]

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.
 
> >   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). 
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

[KJK::Hyperion]

At 11.42 17/12/2003, you wrote:
>  1) 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