[ros-general] Just a curiosity-- ROS redistribution legalities
Frank D. Engel, Jr.
fde101 at yahoo.com
Wed Dec 17 06:35:35 CET 2003
> well as practically signing away your firstborn child
> in order to be eligable.)
Sounds illegal; hmm... possibly a new way to sue M$? There seem to be
so many... ;-)
> So, Say if this person were to have ROS installed
> stock, with various other Open Source packages, like
> OpenOffice (there is a win32 port), and perhaps some
> open sourced entertainment packages, as well as a
> collection of the sources for such applications
> distributed on CD-Rom media (to maintain compliance
> with GPL), and the associated ReadMe's with each
> package, indicating where to go for more information
> about individual packages- Would this strategy be on
> the "Up and up"?
> The reason being, that the most costly part of any
> modern 'win32' based computer is its operating system.
> By eliminating a Windoze license, you EASILY shave off
> 300$ from the computer's price. So, your 500$
> cheapskate computer is now a 200$ cheapskate
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
More information about the ros-general