| |||||||||||||
About the calculus for the projectAbout the calculus for the projectPosted Feb 10, 2012 20:26 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252)In reply to: About the calculus for the project by dlang Parent article: A tempest in a toybox
so if toybox can run on BSD it's legal Oh no. To make it run on BSD is only a first step. Then you need to convince people to actually use it in such configuration :-) If BSD port will just be a curiosity then court will [rightfully] say that it's existence is just a window dressing. Napster was capable of commercially significant non-infringing use - yet it was not enough, after all. But if BSD port will be used often enough then, sure, it'll mean that toybox relicense happened for other reasons besides copyright infringement facilitation. but if it only runs on linux it's a circumvention tool and illegal Again: nope. It's only illegal if it's only runs on linux and if a lot of companies continue to use it to violate GPL license for Linux kernel in [relative] safety. We'll see what happens. Perhaps now, when toybox is available and SFC can not use busybox to sue shady contractors, they will suddenly wise up and all start voluntarily comply with GPL license for kernel or may be they all will switch to BSD... but I somehow doubt it'll happen.
(Log in to post comments)
About the calculus for the project Posted Feb 12, 2012 16:55 UTC (Sun) by landley (guest, #6789) [Link]
> > so if toybox can run on BSD it's legal
> > Oh no. To make it run on BSD is only a first step. Then you need to > convince people to actually use it in such configuration :-) > > If BSD port will just be a curiosity then court will [rightfully] say
*plonk*
Rob
About the calculus for the project Posted Feb 12, 2012 18:59 UTC (Sun) by armijn (subscriber, #3653) [Link]
So reimplementing standard UNIX commands under a BSD license if they only run on Linux is illegal? You lost me.
About the calculus for the project Posted Feb 12, 2012 19:17 UTC (Sun) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] The license under which you develop you software has nothing to do with legality of such activity as I've already explained. If this project is supposed to solve problem of GPL copyright violation in one way or another (or if it's created to solve some other problems, not related to licensing at all) - then it's good, lawful project. If it's goal is to conceal an infringement - then it's illegal. Now, it's easy to claim "out goals are noble and if someone will use our work for unlawful purposes then it's not our problem", but this defense will fly only if statistic will support you. If most users of your project are using it to violate rights of someone else (for example Linux kernel developers) then you'll find yourself in a hot water no matter what you'll say. Napster is prime example - and law only becomes strict over time. ACTA is just the last step on this road - and I doubt it's the final one. The real irony here lies in the fact that SONY which pushes this expansion in the capitol and SONY which tries to "solve" it using morally-questionable tricks like relicensed toybox are the same entity - yet the logical solution (stop trying to stretch power of copyright any further) is somehow not even considered.
About the calculus for the project Posted Feb 13, 2012 8:18 UTC (Mon) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]
> If it's goal is to conceal an infringement - then it's illegal.
That's obviously not its goal.
And, even if it were, it still wouldn't be illegal. If you disagree, please state your case law. Napster is only relevant as a trivial example of failing "significant non-infringing" and has nothing to do with software licensing.
About the calculus for the project Posted Feb 13, 2012 22:15 UTC (Mon) by docwhat (subscriber, #40373) [Link]
Huh? Your legal theory is pretty out there. Do you have anything to back this up? Anything at all?
About the calculus for the project Posted Feb 12, 2012 22:57 UTC (Sun) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
claiming that software is illegal based on how some people (who aren't the authors of the software) choose to use it is a very dangerous thing to do.
This is exactly what the game console and big media companies are trying to do.
There's a very good reason that the "open source definition" requires that there be no limit on the field of use of software for a license to qualify as open source.
It's sad to see GPL proponents playing into their enemies hands by trying to declare competing software to be illegal.
About the calculus for the project Posted Feb 13, 2012 0:05 UTC (Mon) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
this topic has now made it's way onto a very select list, the list of free software / open source related lawsuits that I would like to see happen on the basis that the people making the claim are doing enough harm with their FUD that a lawsuit to set a precedent would be a good thing.
|
|||||||||||||