Bruce Perens: Statement on Busybox Lawsuits

Posted Dec 16, 2009 8:30 UTC (Wed) by jamesh (guest, #1159)
In reply to: Bruce Perens: Statement on Busybox Lawsuits by dlang
Parent article: Bruce Perens: Statement on Busybox Lawsuits

So the waiver means those companies don't need to worry about Bruce filing a follow up lawsuit after they've finished settling with the SFLC?

I guess it is too bad that they can't claim to have been distributing BusyBox under the GPLv3 and then rely on the 30 day grace period to fix the violation.

Yes, it's like RMS's waiver...

Posted Dec 16, 2009 14:52 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] (3 responses)

I don't see what the hoopla is all about. We've been through this before. I don't see why everyone is so excited about this. Illegal change of note is violation of GPL: GPL gives you certain rights, but it does not give you right to change copyright notes (You may copy and distribute... provided that you ... keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty). Once you've changed notes and redistributed the result you've lost you right to use the code in question. Permanently. Irrevocably. (Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License). GPLv3 is more forgiving in this regard but GPLv2 is not: minor violation - and you are out.

This waiver just says: I don't think this small misunderstanding is enough to make license void. I give you permission to use my code in Busybox if the change of copyright notice was the only violation.

Yes, it's like RMS's waiver...

Posted Dec 20, 2009 5:21 UTC (Sun) by dmag (guest, #17775) [Link] (2 responses)

> Illegal change of note is violation of GPL:

Sounds good, but I'm still confused. Everyone agrees we can convert "V2 Or later" to "V2 Only" but nobody agrees HOW to do it.

In practice, keeping the "or later" clause at the top of the file after you merge in "v2 only" code is dangerous.

Or the reverse: I've got a "v2 only" file, and merge in a few lines of "or later" code. Do I put "or later" at the top of the file now?

I think both sides would like the FSF to identify exactly how to merge V2+ and V2-only code.

> GPL gives you certain rights, but it does not give you right to change copyright notes (You may copy and distribute... provided that you ... keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty).

I'm still confused. I thought "this License" meant the v2 GPL. The "or later" clause is NOT part of "this License" (because it actually refers to multiple licenses).

> GPLv3 is more forgiving in this regard but GPLv2 is not: minor violation - and you are out.

"you are out" means I get sued, right?

Suing people (after talking to them of course) might be bad in the short-term, but it is a good long term strategy. (reminds me of RMS -- look at the future, not today).

The fact is that companies are pathological. They will gladly make cribs that kill babies until the government makes it unprofitable by making those cribs illegal to sell.

Companies will stick their heads in the sand about the GPL until forced to deal with it. (I know, I've been an engineer telling my boss we should comply with the GPL, and the boss says "we can deal with that later".)

It was done many times before.

Posted Dec 20, 2009 7:54 UTC (Sun) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

Sounds good, but I'm still confused. Everyone agrees we can convert "V2 Or later" to "V2 Only" but nobody agrees HOW to do it.

Take a look on OpenSSL for example. This package changed licenses 2 or 3 times. You keep copyright notices from old owners around and just add a new one in files where new, "V2 only" code is added. Looks ugly, yes, but it's the only way to do legally it.

The only legal way to remove or change copyright notice without consent of copyright owner is if you remove the file and/or replace it with a brand new one.

I'm still confused. I thought "this License" meant the v2 GPL. The "or later" clause is NOT part of "this License" (because it actually refers to multiple licenses).

License is V2 GPL, but as you've pointed out "or later" clause is NOT part of teh license and it's NOT part of the licensed material. It's COPYRIGHT NOTICE and it's modifications is discussed in GPL separately (as in: it explains how to add the note and makes it impossible to change it).

"you are out" means I get sued, right?

No. You can be sued (since you are distributing the stuff without license), but this is not automatic.

Companies will stick their heads in the sand about the GPL until forced to deal with it. (I know, I've been an engineer telling my boss we should comply with the GPL, and the boss says "we can deal with that later".)

Looks like "the later" is "now". Most companies now publish sources like GPL requires (of course they can not be used as most hardware out there is TiVoized, but that's another story), but few holdouts will probably not change their ways till goods will not be confiscated for copyright violations.

Yes, it's like RMS's waiver...

Posted Dec 23, 2009 4:28 UTC (Wed) by Baylink (guest, #755) [Link]

I posted a comment earlier tonight that might clarify this for you.

The issue is not individual file licenses, which it's clear you cannot change; it's how you can validly distribute an assembled package, which depends on both the incoming licenses (to you) and the licenses you apply to your changes (since the only time this matters is if you're changing or extending a package *and then distributing it yourself*.