11–20 of 94 posts
>The SFC will grant a new license, but on one condition - not only must you provide the source code to Busybox, you must provide the source code to all other works on the device that require source distribution. Wait what? This has actually happened?
Maybe I misunderstood, but I'm not seeing how this is bad. Sony wants to write a BusyBox that doesn't use BusyBox's license? What exactly is the problem? If they don't like the license isn't that the best approach they can take? "A couple of weeks ago, this page appeared on the elinux.org wiki. It's written by an engineer at Sony, and it's calling for contributions to rewriting Busybox. This would be entirely reasona…
It's sad, really. I can see a future where a terminal program or command is embedded in the linux kernel and cannot be removed, only to force companies to stay honest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is bad because Busybox has copyright holders that actively enforce the GPL on their product. They're not asking for this because they dislike Busybox'es GPL license. They're asking for it because they know Busybox actually goes to court to enforce it, and asks for the other GPL products to have their license respected too. I'll spell it out more clearer: they want to get rid of Busybox, because its one of the on…
I'm still not seeing the problem. On one hand, if the license holders of the other infringing software don't care to enforce the license, why should anybody care? It makes no sense to me, but it's up to them. On the other hand, if Sony would rather write it themselves than abide by the GPL then I'm not seeing the problem there, either. Again, it makes no sense, but it's their decision.
Believe it or not, most free software developers aren't dying to spend their time and money to start a copyright lawsuit against Sony. That doesn't mean they're actually OK with their copyright and licenses being violated. Public shaming is often much more cost-effective. But if there's one company that doesn't give a rats ass, it's Sony.
Most free software developers also don't register their copyright (unlike Sony) and so aren't entitled to those fantastically high statutory damages. They have to prove actual damages. For free software.
Good luck.
Maybe I misunderstood, but I'm not seeing how this is bad. Sony wants to write a BusyBox that doesn't use BusyBox's license? What exactly is the problem? If they don't like the license isn't that the best approach they can take? "A couple of weeks ago, this page appeared on the elinux.org wiki. It's written by an engineer at Sony, and it's calling for contributions to rewriting Busybox. This would be entirely reasona…
The implication is that Sony is presently shipping software with Busybox and knowingly violating the licensing terms. If they rewrite Busybox in the interim they will be able to get away scot-free despite their years of flagrant copyright violation. Given the variety of devices Sony ships and their complete lack of respect for the GPL, their plan could very well work unless someone catches them red-handed. And the po…
Maybe I misunderstood, but I'm not seeing how this is bad. Sony wants to write a BusyBox that doesn't use BusyBox's license? What exactly is the problem? If they don't like the license isn't that the best approach they can take? "A couple of weeks ago, this page appeared on the elinux.org wiki. It's written by an engineer at Sony, and it's calling for contributions to rewriting Busybox. This would be entirely reasona…
Busybox is the exception. The SFC actively enforces the license for busybox. In addition, once you lose your right to use busybox as a consequence of a license violation, the SFL will let you ship it again only if you come into compliance on for all of the GPL code you ship.
So they are making their own busybox as a way to continue to violate all the non-busybox GPL code they use.
If you comply with the busybox licence, you can continue to violate the licence on all the other GPL code. But violating busybox means you have to comply with all of your GPL code.
You never have to release your non GPL code.
Maybe I misunderstood, but I'm not seeing how this is bad. Sony wants to write a BusyBox that doesn't use BusyBox's license? What exactly is the problem? If they don't like the license isn't that the best approach they can take? "A couple of weeks ago, this page appeared on the elinux.org wiki. It's written by an engineer at Sony, and it's calling for contributions to rewriting Busybox. This would be entirely reasona…
Note that busybox is only used to obtain the source code of parts of the product for which source code is already required to be provided by the GPL or similar licenses. It's not used to get code which isn't covered by the GPL (although it could in principle be, or at least force the company in violation to choose between that and coming into compliance by removing all use of busybox)
Maybe I misunderstood, but I'm not seeing how this is bad. Sony wants to write a BusyBox that doesn't use BusyBox's license? What exactly is the problem? If they don't like the license isn't that the best approach they can take? "A couple of weeks ago, this page appeared on the elinux.org wiki. It's written by an engineer at Sony, and it's calling for contributions to rewriting Busybox. This would be entirely reasona…
You have misunderstood. The current situation has Sony shipping devices running several/many different programs with GPL licenses. They don't want to provide their modified source code for these programs to their users, in violation of their obligations under the GPL. Most of the copyright holders of this code do not have the means to pursue an infringement case. Busybox is the exception. The SFC actively enforces th…
The fact that a Sony guy wants to build a non-GPL Busybox is not evidence of any Sony violations of the GPL, now or earlier. There is some radical jumping to conclusions here.
>The SFC will grant a new license, but on one condition - not only must you provide the source code to Busybox, you must provide the source code to all other works on the device that require source distribution. Wait what? This has actually happened?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have misunderstood. The current situation has Sony shipping devices running several/many different programs with GPL licenses. They don't want to provide their modified source code for these programs to their users, in violation of their obligations under the GPL. Most of the copyright holders of this code do not have the means to pursue an infringement case. Busybox is the exception. The SFC actively enforces th…
> They don't want to provide their modified source code for these programs to their users, in violation of their obligations under the GPL. The fact that a Sony guy wants to build a non-GPL Busybox is not evidence of any Sony violations of the GPL, now or earlier. There is some radical jumping to conclusions here.