| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Monsoon Multimedia GPL lawsuit settledMonsoon Multimedia GPL lawsuit settledPosted Oct 31, 2007 3:04 UTC (Wed) by pr1268 (subscriber, #24648)In reply to: Monsoon Multimedia GPL lawsuit settled by mikov Parent article: Monsoon Multimedia GPL lawsuit settled
> But I hate lawsuits. And I can't avoid the feeling that had they waited a couple of weeks more, there wouldn't have been a need for one at all. I, too, dislike lawsuits. But, I think that the FSF had exhausted all other options (including just "sitting around" and waiting for Monsoon Multimedia to comply with the GPL. The FSF should be commended for following through procedurally on its quest to keep Free Software free. > Now, I wonder, if there is a choice in the future between GPL and BSD software, which one would Monsoon pick? This assumes that there is a BSD-licensed alternative to BusyBox. Does such a software package exist? (I honestly don't know.)
(Log in to post comments)
The FSF wasn't involved Posted Oct 31, 2007 6:05 UTC (Wed) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] Eben Moglen also represents the FSF, but in this case he and the SFLC represented the BusyBox authors.
The FSF wasn't involved Posted Nov 2, 2007 4:41 UTC (Fri) by pr1268 (subscriber, #24648) [Link] My most sincere apologies to Eben and the SFLC (and to the FSF.) I was obviously not paying attention to exactly who the plaintiff was in this case. Thank you, JoeBuck (and landley, below), for correcting me.
Monsoon Multimedia GPL lawsuit settled Posted Oct 31, 2007 18:31 UTC (Wed) by landley (guest, #6789) [Link] SFLC != FSF. For one thing, the SFLC was quite happy to enforce the busybox license despite busybox being GPLv2 only (no "or later" clause, meaning no GPLv3 for the project ever). The FSF seems to think that sticking with GPLv2 shows a lack of purity and commitment to the glorious cause, or some such: http://lwn.net/Articles/176582/
Monsoon Multimedia GPL lawsuit settled Posted Nov 1, 2007 21:06 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] The very comment thread you linked to points out that this is probably because the FSF sees no reason why it should pay to host code it can't use because of license incompatibility. This seems reasonable enough to me. It's not as if the world is short of hosting sites.
|
|
||||||||||||