About the calculus for the project
Posted Feb 4, 2012 1:10 UTC (Sat) by khim
In reply to: About the calculus for the project
Parent article: A tempest in a toybox
you may want to actually go look at toybox and it's creator (Rob Landley, a former maintainer of Busybox, and one of the plaintifs in many of the SFLC busybox lawsuits)
I have no problems with Rob's work.
Since toybox was a GPLv2 project for several years, it couldn't have been created to make it easy to bypass the GPL.
Of course not. It was only co-opted for that purpose.
The evidence is damning: On an engineering note, they never contributed a single line of code to BusyBox. NOT ONE. I thought they would, but they didn't, so I stopped pursuing them.
What does it say to you? Two things.
1. That future lawsuits will probably not bring new enhancements for busybox.
2. It's not simple to comply with busybox's license. It's trivial.
OEMs don't really change busybox code thus it's enough to just call busybox --version, download tarball from the official site and you can recreate binary.
Now, we have two pieces of software (busybox and Linux kernel). One is 100 times more complex and 1000 times more often modified in practice by OEMs. And someone want to replace the simplest half of the pair - with the explicit goal to STFU the guys who use it as a proxy to get sources for the more interesting part. What does it say about the possible goals?
In fact SONY and others stretched copyright so much that you can argue that project under discussion is doing is most probably flat out illegal. Because in 99% of cases it'll be used as a means to facilitate copyright violation. This fact was enough to kill Naster, why should it be ignored in this case?
to post comments)