From: Joris v. d. S. <vd...@pu...> - 2000-11-22 00:16:31
|
Hi, I was hoping to have finished a preliminary draft of my real- time operating system at the end of last weekend, but some things came up and I didn't spent much time on the RTOS. I have two questions: 1. I came up with the acronym ROSES, for Real-time Operating System for Embedded Systems. However, just to make sure no one else is already using this name I ask you to please reply if you know another OS by that name. Also, if you happen to have a nice (non-copyrighted) stylised line- drawing of some roses that I can use for the documentation or logo, please send it to me :-) 2. I need some help with the legal things. I hate to see my hard work being used by some commercial company to make money out of it. If you have experience with open source projects and the time to help me, please contact me. Although the source code needs some work, the documentation is already useful. As an appetizer until I feel confident enough to release the RTOS to the public, I have put the manual as an PDF file on my ftp-site: ftp://ftp.pulserate.com/pub/roses/manual.pdf Regards, Joris van der Sande vd...@pu... |
From: Joris v. d. S. <vd...@pu...> - 2000-11-19 23:29:03
Attachments:
roses.pdf
|
Hi, I was hoping to have finished a preliminary draft of my real- time operating system at the end of this weekend, but some things came up and I didn't spent much time on the RTOS. I have two questions: 1. I came up with the acronym ROSES, for Real-time Operating System for Embedded Systems. However, just to make sure no one else is already using this name I ask you to please reply if you know another OS by that name. Also, if you happen to have a nice (non-copyrighted) stylised line- drawing of some roses that I can use for the documentation or logo, please send it to me :-) 2. I need some help with the legal things. I hate to see my hard work being used by some commercial company to make money out of it. If you have experience with open source projects and the time to help me, please contact me. Although the source code needs some work, the documentation is already useful. I have attached the documentation PDF file as an appetizer and to show that I am not only words but that I have really done some work ;-) Regards, Joris van der Sande vd...@pu... |
From: Hoeben E. <in...@ho...> - 2000-12-25 00:16:38
|
Hi Joris, I assume you live (like me) in the Netherlands? You can register software and ideas at the 'belastingdienst', I think it costs only about 3.5 Dutch Guilders. You write down some info about your software, sources and description. While you are developing, only the description will do. The only protection this gives is that you can show that you had this idea and/or software at a certain date. As you have registered it as being your idea/code, no other company can claim after that that it is theirs. I does not protect you from copying, but it gives you the chance to continue your work and give out licenses etc. even if the other company claims the software. The only thing that can go wrong is that other company's had the same idea and registered it earlier than you did, or that (for example after publishing in this mail list) the other company registered quickly before you did. I do not think that any company wants to make money out of your OS as there are already several available, and most company's are oriented towards larger processors. Joris van der Sande schreef: > I was hoping to have finished a preliminary draft of my real- > time operating system at the end of this weekend, but some > things came up and I didn't spent much time on the RTOS. > I have two questions: > <snip> > 2. I need some help with the legal things. I hate to see my > hard work being used by some commercial company to make > money out of it. If you have experience with open source > projects and the time to help me, please contact me. ______________________________________________________________________ Hoeben Electronics Phone : +31 6 51590081 Ronkert 44 Fax : +31 13 5096025 5094 EW Lage Mierde Private : +31 13 5096024 The Netherlands E-mail : in...@ho... http://www.hoeben.com <mailto:in...@ho...> ______________________________________________________________________ |
From: Joris v. d. S. <vd...@pu...> - 2000-11-23 12:34:01
|
Hi Michael, > At 11:57 AM 11/23/00 +0100, Michael Schwingen wrote: > >> 2. I need some help with the legal things. I hate to see my >> hard work being used by some commercial company to make >> money out of it. If you have experience with open source >> projects and the time to help me, please contact me. > > What exactly do you want to achive? I feel it is unfair when several people have worked hard to create a nice piece of free software and some company simply "steals" the source, changes a few things and them makes a lot of money by selling it. So basically, I want to prevent other people from using the code for making money. I have also considered demanding royalities when the RTOS is used for commerical purposes, but with an open source project, how does one distribute the received money among the contributors? > You could use the GNU GPL, which means that anyone who makes > a derivative work and distributes it has to supply the source > code as well, and that the modifications are under GPL, also. Ok, so basically this means that once the source is open, it can never be closed again by anyone using it. > However, I can take a GPL'd source, add my own stuff, and > sell the resultung product - I just have to provide source > code upon request, and every buyer may make its own copies as > he wants and distribute them - so this is not much a threat > to a free RTOS, I think. In other words, someone could use the source, replace the GPL message with his company name and become rich. Doesn't sound fair to me?! > In the case of an RTOS that is linked with the application > into a single binary, this basically disables a commercial > company from using it, since they would have to disclose > complete source to their product - if you want this or not is > your decision. Why? If I understood correctly, they are only forced to disclose the source to the RTOS, not to the entire product? To give an example: the famous VxWorks by Wind River Systems comes as a set of prebuilt libraries and some source-code to configure and link the libraries. They use the GNU GCC compiler to build the kernel. However, they don't seem to distribute the GCC source, nor do they even mention they are using it. Doesn't this violate the GNU GPL? Thanks for your help. Regards, Joris |
From: Joris v. d. S. <vd...@pu...> - 2000-11-23 15:23:27
|
Hi Michael, >> In other words, someone could use the source, replace the >> GPL message with his company name and become rich. Doesn't >> sound fair to me?! > > He can´t (legally) remove copyright notices, and the code is > still under GPL (and the GPL has to come with it, so the > buyer knows about it). > > So he won´t make much money, because once someone buys it, > the buyer may upload it to some internet site, etc. - after > all, it is still free. Ok. So a company could only make money from "added value" such as printed documentation, support, training, etc. This is fair, since these are things they have put effort in themselves. > So if we get back to your RTOS, and assume it is under GPL: > then anyone selling it has to supply (upon request) the > source code to the RTOS (and everything that is directly > linked in). > > Since I assume that on a 8051, you will link RTOS and > application into one single binary, that means everything. > > Even if you make the system so modular that you can link the > RTOS as a single block, and then add an application > independently (eg. in a separate ROM space), they will still > have to supply the source code for the (probably modified) > RTOS they use. In that case, however, they would not have to > supply source code for their aplication. Ok. This is also fair, since their application is not based on the work of others. > I guess there should be more explanations on the GPL on > www.gnu.org somewhere, but I tend to think that the GPL > would do what you want to achieve. I think you are right. I'll study the GNU website to find out what actions I should take, such as registering the ROSES project somewhere, what copyright messages I must use, etc. Thanks again for your help! Regards, Joris |
From: Joris v. d. S. <vd...@pu...> - 2000-11-23 21:48:11
|
Hi Doug, > Anyways, this is the main difference of GPL vs. BSD license. > It is difficult to make and embedded product with the GPL. BSD > is more open in that way. The BSD license deals more with the > what make sense but do what you want. Most companies using BSD > license where they don't have to give back usually do and do so > more since they aren't force to give back the crown jewels. > This is why a lot of embedded systems using UNIX like stuff pick > BSD over Linux. I am not sure I understand what you mean. Are you saying that under the BSD license, companies don't have to give away their source code after they have modified the open source code? That would not be fair, since they could for example modify the names of the RTOS API functions (to camouflage they stole it), and sell the product as if it were their own invention. Since all RTOSes look alike, no one could ever tell that they stole the work of others. Could you please elaborate on what the differences are between the GPL and BSD licenses? Thanks for your response. Regards, Joris |
From: Joris v. d. S. <vd...@pu...> - 2000-11-24 10:48:37
|
Hi Doug, >| I am not sure I understand what you mean. Are you saying that >| under the BSD license, companies don't have to give away their >| source code after they have modified the open source code? That > > Yes, > >| would not be fair, since they could for example modify the names > > Depends and what you think fair is? Is it fair that I create > some widget with my own code based on open source code and have > to give it away? Where is the fairness to me to protect my IP. > If you are trying to protect your IP then keep it proprietary and > it have a hard time to compete against other more established > RTOSs. > >| of the RTOS API functions (to camouflage they stole it), and sell >| the product as if it were their own invention. Since all RTOSes >| look alike, no one could ever tell that they stole the work of >| others. > > They can't just steal it code, that is illegal so you can sue them. > You can only use code under the license that it is granted with. > Just changing the names doesn't mean anything. In fact it is > perfectly legal to re-implement an API and sell that. In case of a RTOS that is not my biggest worry. In my opinion the APIs of RTOSes all look alike. It is the implementation that makes the difference. >| Could you please elaborate on what the differences are between the >| GPL and BSD licenses? > > Note I'm no lawyer but here is some more info: > > It get's pretty religious. Also understand there are 2 GPL licenses > the GPL and LGPL. The LGPL is different from the GPL in that if a > library that is being linked can be replaced with another library > then the code linked to the library is exempt from the GPL. The > GPL has also be termed viral, in that it infects and effects the > license of code that is used with it. I GPL stuff is linked into > another program that becomes GPL. So many people avoid it if they > are making a small system. For example if I made a wigdet that > was linked to GPL then you could ask for my code if I ever gave > out that widget. That is indeed a problem since the RTOS will always have to be linked with the application. I only want to protect the RTOS, not the applications that make use of it. I did not know of the LGPL license, but I might have to consider it instead of the GPL license. > Here is the full BSD license. Just recently clause 3 has been > removed. > > * Copyright (c) 1981, 1983, 1993 > * The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. > * > * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without > * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions > * are met: > * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright > * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. > * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright > * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the > * documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. > * 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software > * must display the following acknowledgement: > * This product includes software developed by the University of > * California, Berkeley and its contributors. > * 4. Neither the name of the University nor the names of its contributors > * may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software > * without specific prior written permission. > * > * THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE REGENTS AND CONTRIBUTORS ``AS IS'' AND > * ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE > * IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE > * ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE REGENTS OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE > * FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL > * DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS > * OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) > * HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT > * LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY > * OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF > * SUCH DAMAGE. > */ > > As an opinion I think you are being to afraid. However, it is your right > to do what you want. What are your goals? Mainly: preventing others to sell the work of myself and other contributors to the ROSES project. > If you make you license to restrictive no-one will ever use your code, or > someone will just re-write based on your API. Agreed. It would be wrong if the license on ROSES would affect the applications that use ROSES. The license should only protect ROSES itself, not the applications that are linked with it and use its API. > If you want your API and code to be wide-spread so people don't have to re- > event the wheel then release it so that it is easily used so people will > pick your system to use. Then they will probably help you make it better. > Also you maybe able to get a large user base to make it a defacto standard. > If you don't get a large user base then it may just wither and die. Although it would be arrogant to assume ROSES becomes a standard, it is important to pick the right license from the start to allow it to grow and spread. However, it is my worst nightmare that once ROSES has matured, someone "borrows" the code, camouflages the API by changing some names, puts it in a nice box and sells the product for big bucks. I have seen a similair thing happen to an acquaintance who had invested a lot of his time in a very nice piece of free software (which I will not name here) and put it in the open. A few months later he read in some magazine an advertisement of a company selling a similair product. He bought this product just out of curiosity and to see how well this product performed compared to this code. Although they had changed some names, it was obvious they simply stole the source and commercialised it. They didn't even bother to fix the documented bugs!!! However, since this is a very large company with a very good legal departement, it is useless for him as an individual to sue them since they will simply lengthen the process until he is bankrupt. Besides, how can you prove they stole the source code? There first has to be reasonable doubt before a judge will force this company to open up their source code... I know that a GPL, LGPL, BSD or whatever license won't help in this case either. However, if you have chosen one of the "common" licenses this might help to mobilise more people to fight a company. I am not sure, but perhaps it would then even be possible to have the legal departement of the GNU organisation or Berkeley University help you with your fight. I will continue my quest for the suitable license and give LGPL a look. Thanks for your insights. Regards, Joris |