BusyBox settles another lawsuit [LWN.net]

BusyBox settles another lawsuit

Posted Mar 7, 2008 14:33 UTC (Fri) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270)
In reply to: BusyBox settles another lawsuit by jeff@uclinux.org
Parent article: BusyBox settles another lawsuit

What Rob posted were what he cares about as a rights holder. Anyone providing the information
he asked for should be trivially able to satisfy the letter of the license if anyone actually
asked them to do so. [I'd say that anyone capable of realistically doing anything useful with
the source would also be able to satisfy her needs with that information.]

The license terms are what they are. Most rights holders seem content with one or another
thing equivalent to the license terms. Offering downloads, for instance, does not satisfy the
license, but does satisfy most rights holders [and, I imagine, most people who want the
sources.]

However, you're right that anyone shipping GPLed code needs to be aware of the actual terms,
needs to meet at least the notification requirements, and needs to be prepared to provide
source if requested.

(Log in to post comments)

BusyBox settles another lawsuit

Posted Mar 7, 2008 15:04 UTC (Fri) by jeff@uclinux.org (guest, #8024) [Link]

While what Rob requests is nice to have (all of us prefer useful patches to a tarball of
garbage 
from a vendor), this is NOT compliance with the license.  Rob will take these reasonable
things 
and be happy... that's fine.  But those interested in having a legal framework for Valid,
Global, 
Running Business (which is what embedded is about, make no mistake) cannot rely upon what 
Rob would like to get.  Remember, we got into these discussions because the busybox project is

interested in "enforcement" of the License and has sued people over it.  That license is the
GPL... 
only.  Rob's post is suggesting people do things that don't amount to compliance when 
compared to the requirements of the license, and that's not good. There are others of us who
are 
copyright holders, many many in fact, and who knows what some others will do in that
situation.

The license language is clear, if one wants to  satisfy the legal requirements and get on with
the 
real work, that's where to look.  If one is  interested in wondering about the legality of
what one 
ships, posting some (perhaps perceived to be) random patches and version numbers seems to 
apply.

J.