[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: ros-general
Subject: [ros-general] Just a curiosity-- ROS redistribution legalities
From: Wierd Wierd <wierd_w () yahoo ! com>
Date: 2003-12-26 12:56:50
Message-ID: 20031226125650.38649.qmail () web10701 ! mail ! yahoo ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
Thu Dec 18 12:53:19 CET 2003
KJK::Hyperion wrote:
"Open Source" is adetail. Try to actually understand what are licenses about: just \
slapping labels may be easier, but is stupid. Softwarelicenses cover two aspects: use \
and redistribution (if sources are available andthe 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 sourcelicenses, for example, allow unlimited use, limited distribution of the \
software and sources and limited use of the codeNow 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 \
softwareis 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
I believe that was covered by what I said prior to the statement that youfelt \
warranted this. "Free to install on computers that they **OWN**, and feel need the \
software installed onit." I do believe that is "USE", and not "redistribution". \
"redistribution" would be ifthey went to their cousin's (sister's, brothers, \
whatever's) house, and installed it there. In which case they would have \
redistributed thesoftware without conforming to the terms of the license agreement \
(In this case, ROS being under the GNU Public License,which requires that the \
software contain an unchanged version of the GPL license, an that source must be \
madeavailable to the new recipient, since they are granted the exact same rights as \
the one that distributed to them, andthat they must in turn, pass those rights on to \
individuals theydistribute to. I believe the GPL lays those terms out quiteclearly, \
However, If I were to bundle software under such a license, I would provide system \
documentation, and wouldprovide a full copy of the GPL (and any other licenses that \
any otherbundled software has), and a description of the terms (meaning that Iwould \
explicitly point out what you 'can' and 'cannot' do under thelicense, and what the \
repercussions of violation are (In case of GPL, termination of rights to use, \
distribute, or modify such software.)within such system documentation.
I believe having the great big words "READ THIS FIRST!IMPORTANT LEGAL INFORMATION \
INSIDE!" on the system documentation,which contains the licenses, and descriptions of \
the licenses (Inaddition to the probably required set-up instructions) would be \
sufficient to get the attention ofmost ordinary users, and help to ensure that THEY \
read and understand these same said licenses, and understand theirrepercussions. If \
however, they still do not comply to the terms of such licenses, it would not be \
myresponsibility legally, since *I* would have conformed to the license agreement(s) \
to the letter by fulfilling allrequirements and guidelines mentioned in said license \
agreement(s).
(phew- what a mouthful!)
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'dbe harmless, is wrong and misleading.
I do realize this. The reason for incorporating a license, is to protectthe
software and its authors from harm. The most common and prevalent windfor
'harm' in this case, would be the 'embrace and extend' method use bymicrosoft
or the release of software in ways that its authors feel inappropriate.(IE,
it is released changed, and the user isn't informed of such- Or, it isreleased
without sourcecode, OR, for buyware, it is released without properpayment, etc.)
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
I know. The Free in "Free Software" means free use, as a publicservice.
But I was meaning that I would provide full (official & unchanged -wsourse)
releases, and provide the licenses in plain and clear view,and would do
so for no monetary cost--aka 'free' in the more general term. Thedistinction
between 'Free' and "Free*" would be outlined in thedocumentation shipped
with such hypothetical units. Software bundled with the machineswould
be carefully selected based on the criteria of their respectivelicenses.
Software with licenses prohibiting that form of redistribution wouldnot
be bundled. As for 'Discount legal advice'--- I didn't mean toimpose.
I just felt it would be the smartest decision to simply ASK the people
who make ROS for guidelines on redistribution, since there might be
'preferred' methods and conditions. ----Or would you rather thatpeople
just do it without asking first?
(PS, sorry about the lateness of this reply, I decided to hold off,until
I had put my finger on the problem that was causing my posts to notthread
properly... Hopefully this is now resolved... (damn yahoo.. ohwell)...)
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos - Get your photo on the big screen in Times Square
[Attachment #3 (text/html)]
<html>
<body>
<i>Thu Dec 18 12:53:19 CET 2003</i> <br>
<b>KJK::Hyperion</b> wrote:<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><pre>"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
</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font></blockquote><br>
I believe that was covered by what I said prior to the statement that you
felt warranted this. "Free to install on<br>
computers that they **OWN**, and feel need the software installed on
it." I do believe that is "USE", and not<br>
"redistribution". "redistribution" would be if
they went to their cousin's (sister's, brothers, whatever's) house, and
<br>
installed it there. In which case they would have redistributed the
software without conforming to the terms of the<br>
license agreement (In this case, ROS being under the GNU Public License,
which requires that the software contain <br>
an unchanged version of the GPL license, an that source must be made
available to the new recipient, since they are<br>
granted the exact same rights as the one that distributed to them, and
that they must in turn, pass those rights on to individuals they
distribute to. I believe the GPL lays those terms out quite
clearly, However, If I were to bundle software<br>
under such a license, I would provide system documentation, and would
provide a full copy of the GPL (and any other licenses that any other
bundled software has), and a description of the terms (meaning that I
would explicitly point out what you 'can' and 'cannot' do under the
license, and what the repercussions of violation are (In case of GPL,
<br>
termination of rights to use, distribute, or modify such software.)
within such system documentation. <br><br>
I believe having the great big words "READ THIS FIRST!
IMPORTANT LEGAL INFORMATION INSIDE!" on the system documentation,
which contains the licenses, and descriptions of the licenses (In
addition to the probably <br>
required set-up instructions) would be sufficient to get the attention of
most ordinary users, and help to ensure that<br>
THEY read and understand these same said licenses, and understand their
repercussions. If however, they still<br>
do not comply to the terms of such licenses, it would not be my
responsibility legally, since *I* would have<br>
conformed to the license agreement(s) to the letter by fulfilling all
requirements and guidelines mentioned in said<br>
license agreement(s).<br><br>
(phew- what a mouthful!)<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><pre>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.
</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></blockquote><br>
I do realize this. The reason for incorporating a license, is to protect
the<br>
software and its authors from harm. The most common and prevalent wind
for<br>
'harm' in this case, would be the 'embrace and extend' method use by
microsoft<br>
or the release of software in ways that its authors feel inappropriate.
(IE,<br>
it is released changed, and the user isn't informed of such- Or, it is
released<br>
without sourcecode, OR, for buyware, it is released without proper
payment, etc.)<br><br>
<br><br>
</font><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><pre>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
</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></blockquote><br>
I know. The Free in "Free Software" means free use, as a public
service. <br>
But I was meaning that I would provide full (official & unchanged -w
sourse)<br>
releases, and provide the licenses in plain and clear view,
and would do <br>
so for no monetary cost--aka 'free' in the more general term. The
distinction<br>
between 'Free' and "Free*" would be outlined in the
documentation shipped<br>
with such hypothetical units. Software bundled with the machines
would<br>
be carefully selected based on the criteria of their respective
licenses.<br>
Software with licenses prohibiting that form of redistribution would
not<br>
be bundled. As for 'Discount legal advice'--- I didn't mean to
impose.<br>
I just felt it would be the smartest decision to simply ASK the people
<br>
who make ROS for guidelines on redistribution, since there might be<br>
'preferred' methods and conditions. ----Or would you rather that
people <br>
just do it without asking first?<br><br>
(PS, sorry about the lateness of this reply, I decided to hold off,
until<br>
I had put my finger on the problem that was causing my posts to not
thread<br>
properly... Hopefully this is now resolved... (damn yahoo.. oh
well)...)</font></body>
<br>
</html>
<p><hr SIZE=1>
Do you Yahoo!?<br>
Yahoo! Photos - <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=21486/*http://f1.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph//spsimplenol?.file=ny_ts_splash.html">Get \
your photo on the big screen in Times Square</a>
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic