| |||||||||||||
ELCE: The state of embedded LinuxELCE: The state of embedded LinuxPosted Nov 4, 2010 1:12 UTC (Thu) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330)Parent article: ELCE: The state of embedded Linux "BusyBox lawsuits have caused some consternation in the embedded world because of the demands for Makefiles and installation instructions. Not everyone interprets the GPL to require those things, but it is, as yet, unresolved." Then not everyone has read the GPL. It really isn't at all ambiguous, and it's hard to claim that it's unresolved (though some copyright holders might not be interested in enforcing the relevant provision of the license). From GPLv2: The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable.The scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable, if you're using a Make-based flow, are the makefiles, plus any scripts used to run those makefiles. The intent is clear: the person who receives the source should be able to easily rebuild the executable. That's why the BusyBox people have had no trouble forcing people to comply. If work needs to be done to separate out the build system for the proprietary parts from the GPL parts, sorry, that needs to be done up front. It's part of the price of being able to use all that great software for free.
(Log in to post comments)
ELCE: The state of embedded Linux Posted Nov 4, 2010 2:04 UTC (Thu) by tbird20d (subscriber, #1901) [Link]
Although I do not have details, I believe the request was for more than just the Makefiles. I believe the request was for the instructions necessary to install the resulting binaries on the device. While the GPL v2 does say "scripts for ... installation", not everyone interprets that as installation to the device. In particular, one of the primary maintainers of busybox, Eric Anderson has told me he does not interpret the GPL v2 license to require that. It would be nice to get more legal details here, but the sued parties are being understandable tight-lipped.
I know some people in the community want to be Draconian about anti-Tivo-ization, but personally I just don't think the license requires it, and that this extra push for device installation access on a GPL v2-licensed component is doing more harm than good. I have heard that at least one company has backed off the use of Linux over it.
ELCE: The state of embedded Linux Posted Nov 4, 2010 6:01 UTC (Thu) by madscientist (subscriber, #16861) [Link]
Personally I don't see the problem. If they "back off" using Linux, then that's THEIR loss, not ours. Who cares? This is not the 80's: FOSS is a dominant player virtually everywhere and need make no apologies to anyone.
The companies that do use Linux and the rest of the FOSS environment, and are willing to play by the rules, will have a huge advantage in time to market, etc.. That's what FOSS offers, but freedom AIN'T free-of-charge: you don't have to pay directly but you DO have to pay indirectly. If companies don't want to pay the indirect cost, fine: they can use something else and pay a different way, in up-front licensing, distribution, support, and development costs.
Of course there are always outliers but it's not hard to see how the result will trend over time, so why should we make it easier for them to make OUR lives more difficult--and less free?
ELCE: The state of embedded Linux Posted Nov 4, 2010 11:22 UTC (Thu) by rwmj (subscriber, #5474) [Link]
They're always free to develop their own OS instead of reusing the hard work of others. Or go with a commercial OS and pay up $$ per device.
These developers are saving millions and yet won't release some simple Makefiles and instructions. The mind boggles.
ELCE: The state of embedded Linux Posted Nov 4, 2010 21:46 UTC (Thu) by tbird20d (subscriber, #1901) [Link]
This is not about the OS, it's about busybox. The companies in question have released the source code, and Makefiles, and have complied with all license terms, according to their (and many others') understanding of the license.
Sure, you can tell CE companies to take their ball and go home, but I think it would be unfortunate for the industry and the community to fragment over this issue, when it appears to me that someone is just overreaching the license.
ELCE: The state of embedded Linux Posted Nov 4, 2010 12:10 UTC (Thu) by etienne (subscriber, #25256) [Link]
> While the GPL v2 does say "scripts for ... installation"
Maybe it means that you can re-install an identical (bit to bit) library.
Busybox lawsuits: installation scripts and instructions Posted Nov 4, 2010 20:59 UTC (Thu) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] While the GPL v2 does say "scripts for ... installation", not everyone interprets that as installation to the device. Plus, it sounds like they're demanding more than scripts for installation to the device. "Instructions" sounds like some document that doesn't already exist. When I read the GPL, it sounds all about releasing what you've got, not generating new stuff to help people to work with your code. You have to release the source code you use to generate the binary, but it doesn't have to be readable and you don't have to write up a tutorial on how to work with it. Or answer emails asking how it works.
Busybox lawsuits: installation scripts and instructions Posted Nov 8, 2010 18:50 UTC (Mon) by johnflux (subscriber, #58833) [Link]
The worry might be if it's almost impossibly hard to install.
Busybox lawsuits: installation scripts and instructions Posted Nov 9, 2010 4:01 UTC (Tue) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] The worry might be if it's almost impossibly hard to install. Yes, that's a well known weakness of GPL. It's possible in a number of ways to meet all its conditions and avail oneself of gratis code without actually giving anything back. GPL 3 attempts to severely reduce the ways to do that. But the lawsuit won't be concerned with the license that the authors of Busybox intended to or would have liked to give. All that matters is the license they did give. If that license is effective even when the code is impossible to install, so be it.
ELCE: The state of embedded Linux Posted Nov 9, 2010 6:45 UTC (Tue) by jmm82 (guest, #59425) [Link]
I have read the GPLv2 50 times and still find the document not obvious by nature. Isn't that on purpose?
|
|||||||||||||