| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
BusyBox settles another lawsuitBusyBox settles another lawsuitPosted Mar 8, 2008 3:34 UTC (Sat) by gdt (subscriber, #6284)In reply to: BusyBox settles another lawsuit by macson_g Parent article: BusyBox settles another lawsuit
I think that BusyBox requirements are draconian. They're not in practice onerous if you add the requirement to make the source available into your binary build process. That build then emits the binary and related source and you push both to the CD or website. I'm currently building device which uses BusyBox, and I'm terrified, that instead of simply putting link to SVN repository on our website, I have to host source of each package used, which is 99% vanilla. If you are worried about bandwidth issues, then it's not difficult to find free hosting for GPLed software distribution, even for commercial for-profit vendors. You might want to carefully read the SVN Book. When you use third-party software in SVN the recommended structure does take a complete copy of the original source, and you then you pull that into your trunk. This makes it very easy to port your application to a later version of the third party software (eg, when it has security issues). If the Busybox requirements terrify you, then don't read the VxWorks license :-)
(Log in to post comments)
|
|
||||||||||||