Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
LWN.net Weekly Edition for June 20, 2013
Pencil, Pencil, and Pencil
Dividing the Linux desktop
LWN.net Weekly Edition for June 13, 2013
A report from pgCon 2013
A tempest in a toybox
Posted Feb 2, 2012 13:06 UTC (Thu) by robert_s (subscriber, #42402)
Posted Feb 2, 2012 15:38 UTC (Thu) by deater (subscriber, #11746)
If GPL software is being shipped without source, I want that fixed.
I don't think the fix should involve all kinds of crazy strings attached.
Yes, it would be nice if the kernel GPL violations are fixed too. That's really unrelated to the busybox GPL enforcement. I mean, it would be nice if the infringing company would give all Linux developers candy and ponies too, but it seems like a silly demand to make.
If the Linux kernel developers want to enforce their GPL, let them. I don't see why it's the busybox lawyer's business at all though.
I'm saying this as someone who has a (very small) amount of GPL'd code in the linux-kernel tree.
Posted Feb 3, 2012 11:24 UTC (Fri) by dwmw2 (subscriber, #2063)
When they contact a router manufacturer who is shipping a Linux-based device without any source code at all, and they come to an out-of-court settlement… you'd rather they only made sure the offending company publishes their Busybox source code, and nothing else?
You don't want them asking the company to comply with the law for all software they use in that specific product?
For my part, I disagree strongly with you. I am grateful that they have been asking these companies to stop violating my copyright too.
I just don't understand your point of view at all. See the example I gave elsewhere about beating my children.
Posted Feb 9, 2012 20:19 UTC (Thu) by landley (guest, #6789)
The FSF couldn't make me write GPLv3 code, but they _could_ make me stop writing GPLv2 code. And I'm not alone:
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds