[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       ros-general
Subject:    Re: [ros-general] Just a curiosity-- ROS redistribution
From:       "KJK::Hyperion" <noog () libero ! it>
Date:       2003-12-18 11:53:19
Message-ID: 6.0.0.22.2.20031218114422.042c6e50 () pop3 ! aldebaran
[Download RAW message or body]

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 


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]