| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
BusyBox settles another lawsuitBusyBox settles another lawsuitPosted Mar 6, 2008 19:57 UTC (Thu) by atai (subscriber, #10977)In reply to: BusyBox settles another lawsuit by macson_g Parent article: BusyBox settles another lawsuit
You have to provide the exact source code you use to build the Busybox software you distribute so people can rebuild them and verify that your binaries do come from this set of sources. On the other hand, BusyBox can only require you to provide sources to the software they write... they cannot force you to do this for other GPL'd software not written by them. But practically that does not matter because the other authors would demand the same.
(Log in to post comments)
BusyBox settles another lawsuit Posted Mar 8, 2008 22:10 UTC (Sat) by jengelh (subscriber, #33263) [Link] >You have to provide the exact source code you use to build the Busybox software you distribute so people can rebuild them and verify that your binaries do come from this set of sources. And that is where the problems begin, for example with code that puts the compilation date into the binary. That way you will never get the exact MD5 of the originally-shipped binary! :-(
BusyBox settles another lawsuit Posted Mar 9, 2008 7:59 UTC (Sun) by atai (subscriber, #10977) [Link] This should not be a problem... people can verify if your binaries are built this way from the sources, by modifying the sources to hard code the dates you have in your binaries...
|
|
||||||||||||