Does the ReactOS project get any money from OSDisc.com?

Here you can discuss ReactOS related topics.

Moderator: Moderator Team

Z98
Release Engineer
Posts: 3379
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 8:16 pm
Contact:

Re: Does the ReactOS project get any money from OSDisc.com?

Post by Z98 » Wed Nov 12, 2014 3:10 am

Color me a tad confused, but what exactly drives this desire to buy CDs? Since my joining the project has never released what we consider a 'milestone' release. The last one was 0.3.0 and shortly afterward we went through a really rough period of instability and memory corruption (0.3.1, the first release I shepherded, was quite frankly an outright embarrassment), and even the most recent releases have had major issues. A 0.4.0 release the team might put together a collector's image of some kind (note the might, anyone who attempts to use this as any sort of confirmation will be ignored by me on far more than just this topic) but why are any of the other releases significant enough to warrant a printing?

Oddjob64
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2014 10:21 am

Re: Does the ReactOS project get any money from OSDisc.com?

Post by Oddjob64 » Wed Nov 12, 2014 3:48 am

The site distributes CDs for lots of Linux distros. I guess they just found this and added it to their catalog without digging much. Also, it is in the category of "Software for Old Computers", which may imply they believe ReactOS is abandonware.

Aeneas
Posts: 465
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 10:09 pm

Re: Does the ReactOS project get any money from OSDisc.com?

Post by Aeneas » Wed Nov 12, 2014 9:44 am

To my best knowledge, at least in the EU, since C-558/08 (Portakabin/Primakabin case), it is clear that you cannot prevent someone to use your signs and logos if it is done for purely informational purpose. The argument of the court was that otherwise, you would simply slaughter the second-hand business. You couldn't sell your old Mercedes, because you wouldn't be allowed to show it is a Mercedes. That would be obviously nonsense.

With OSdisc.com, I wonder whether you'd have any real chance to stop them from anything at all. Indeed, Z98 is perfectly right, you CAN sell goods that contain GPL software - the GPL even explicitly allows you to charge a small fee for the media. And what you are buying, after all, is a CD. That website sells tons of other OS CDs, too, so I do not see really how you will construe an "affiliation".

So I personally really see no "duty" of them to give ReactOS any of its profits.

But why seek the conflict if you can have a little co-operation? - You might as well investigate how much money they make with ReactOS, and if it is a decent amount, you might as well place a link on your website (maybe in the Download section) to their website, if they give you some money for that. (Of course, you'd have to clarify whether such activity can be conducted by a non-commercial entity as the ReactOS foundation, but you might be able to justify it by saying, "we want to distribute ReactOS and that site would only help this ultimately non-commercial purpose".)

Webunny
Posts: 1201
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2012 1:30 pm

Re: Does the ReactOS project get any money from OSDisc.com?

Post by Webunny » Wed Nov 12, 2014 1:06 pm

justincase wrote:Those posts look to me like they're about third party distribution in general, not specifically OSDisc.com. As far as I can tell you could open up a website of your own and sell ReactOS discs and they would apply to you too. There is no reason to separate your own desire to distribute ReactOS CDs from OSDisc.com's doing so unless you specifically want to have a different result (which in this case means that you (specifically you) have to jump through extra hoops to be allowed to do what they're already doing without having jumped through said hoops).
Well, that's an interpretation of course (that it was universal in nature), since in effect the latter was specifically towards me, while the first were 'they', reasonably assuming OSDisc. As said, that interpretation has some logical value, as one might expect the same behaviour towards all third party memebers, but then you invariably must conclude the posts contradict eachother a bit.

That said, it's quite feasible that the situational context differs too, since my effort was meant as community effort thing (aka; through ROS itself), which, obviously, would include some ectra hoop-jumping that OSDisc has not. which is why my situation could differ enough to warrant a different reaction towards the use of the logo. (Though, as said, I DO think it was claimed I couldn't use it otherwise. But maybe it was used IN the context of ROS endorsing it, which wouldn't apply to OSDisc). Point is, one can't just extrapolate his reaction to me, as being universal in nature towards any other person, organisation or situation.
It seems to me that you're just trying to make a debate where there isn't one, we both want the same thing, for ReactOS CDs to be distributed, and for the proceeds to go toward the development of ReactOS.
Seriously, take a break and let someone who has some degree of authority over the distribution rights of ReactOS respond.
I was just pointing out that it was a bit premature to conclude what he said in a post to me (in that situation back then) should be applicable to any and all other third parties and situations. And I did take a break, hence my question to z98 to clarify the position a bit.
:arrow: Is there any chance that we (the community) can get ReactOS CDs from a distributor who sends at least a portion of the money they get from selling them to the ReactOS foundation?

I honestly don't care if this is via OSDisc.com, or via Webunny, or if you guys come up with some other way of doing it, but I'd really like to be able to help fund ReactOS by buying CDs.
I have a rather bad experience with it and didn't like the way things went, especially with the reaction of Amine, but this is not the time or place to rekindle that subject. Point is, I don't feel like investing much effort in such a thing anymore, unless there are some very clear agreements being made, and who's going to do what when, and what is necessary to do what, and not getting the reproach that I should have asked for help, when it was made clear that one was going to do it on their own, and if it didn't work out after all (and it didn't, because we're now almost two years further, and there still is no printed CD-buying possibility), it's for them to ask, then. It was like a reversed reasoning, imho. But that's in the past. I agree with you that in principle, it would be a nice Idea to sell printed CD's. If done with a third party, like OSDisc, it would mean that there would be no overhead. And if one can come to an agreement with a percentage of the profit going to ROS, why not?

One point though: when only going for small numbers, a color-printed CD is pretty expensive (15-25 dollar). You'd at least need 50-150 to lower the price enough (when buying in bulk). Then again, if another party does it, we just don't have to care about that, since it's for them to see if they get something out of it, and we just need to see for a percentage. Every bit would help, I would say.


Z98 wrote:Color me a tad confused, but what exactly drives this desire to buy CDs? Since my joining the project has never released what we consider a 'milestone' release. The last one was 0.3.0 and shortly afterward we went through a really rough period of instability and memory corruption (0.3.1, the first release I shepherded, was quite frankly an outright embarrassment), and even the most recent releases have had major issues. A 0.4.0 release the team might put together a collector's image of some kind (note the might, anyone who attempts to use this as any sort of confirmation will be ignored by me on far more than just this topic) but why are any of the other releases significant enough to warrant a printing?
I have no idea, but why does it matter? It's not for us to guess why people want to buy a CD. Maybe because they want to support ROS and yet have a physical mento of it? Who cares what the reasons are? Point is, as long as there are people buying it, it would be nice if some of it flowed back to ROS, as Justin also said.

Anyway: is Aeneas right? If so, basically one has no real obligation to say they aren't endorsed, rather they can't say they are endorsed. Which would make it, as said, not the same for OSDisk; they don't have to 'make it clear', then.

But I think all three of us are basically saying the same in one regard: it would be good if one tried to 'affiliate' in some way with a service like that (or at least tries to come to some mutual beneficial agreement).

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 3 guests