FSF, OSI and Busybox

FSF, OSI and Busybox

what you are pointing at is a quote from the contract that rob just signed with Cisco. Rob points out in the previous days comments that busybox had been listing Cisco as an example of the right way to do license compliance. so to see them be sued by the FSF seems odd.

Why does it seem to be odd? BusyBox isn't in the suit and furthermore BusyBox isn't FSF.

I haven't taken the time to wade through the details, so I can't say which side is right, so I'm not taking sides here.

Personally I'm going to err on the side of caution here and say that it's an ongoing problem that FSF is sick of trying to get them to comply after the fact rather than as part of the product development.The FSF have been going to cisco for five years to keep fixing the same problem just on different products. How is this fair? When cisco has clearly had enough time to get their act together and pro-actively fix a problem they know exists. The simple answer is that it's cheaper for them to react to FSF's complaints then to pro-actively prevent them since FSF's resources are free for them to use. With the situation up until now , cisco was effectively getting the investigation into GPL compliance for new products for free , rather than having to pay for it themselves.

It's akin to getting your brakes done at a mechanic , than having to go back every time and get him to bleed them. He clearly knows he's got to bleed the brakes as part of the job but he only does it when you come back and ask him to do it.

Rob clearly is upset that FSF entirely separate actions might interfere with his meal ticket.

Note: you can avoid this step in the future by logging into your LWN account.