Clarification on a few points

Posted Jan 31, 2012 20:37 UTC (Tue) by HelloWorld (guest, #56129)
In reply to: Clarification on a few points by tbird20d
Parent article: Garrett: The ongoing fight against GPL enforcement

> It is NOT the goal of this to help people violate the GPL, but rather to decrease the risk of some nuclear outcome, should a mistake be made somewhere in the supply chain for a product. For example, it is possible for a mistake made by an ODM (like providing the wrong busybox source version) could result in the recall of millions of unrelated products.
As Bruce Perens pointed out earlier, SFC's settlement terms have always been very reasonable, so there's no "nuclear outcome" to be expected. Given the current state of affairs, the only conceivable purpose of your project is actually what you deny it to be: avoiding GPL enforcement. So I'm sorry, but I believe you're lying to us.
Besides, it's a really, really lame excuse anyway. It really isn't that hard to just read and follow the bloody license. If people fuck it up nevertheless, they deserve to be punished.

to post comments

Clarification on a few points

Posted Feb 1, 2012 13:45 UTC (Wed) by masoncl (subscriber, #47138) [Link] (4 responses)

Busybox represents an unknown...just because the cases so far have gone a certain way doesn't mean they always will. It's easy to imagine doing some math on a napkin and coming to Tim's position. It's free software, and he's equally free to not use it.

But, I'd certainly be more comfortable with a project to ensure compliance in the providers. It's easy to assume the suppliers would be willing to prove compliance if they didn't get paid until it was proven.

I admit this is a simple view of a very complex supply chain (sorry Tim). The suppliers still must prove the replacement is used instead of busybox. Why not just check the sources provided instead?

This is a fixed R&D cost (not a per-unit cost), and big electronics companies force suppliers to conform to all kinds of rules and specifications. They also do a range of tests on the fully assembled devices.

It's fair for us to expect compliance to be one of those tests.

Clarification on a few points

Posted Feb 1, 2012 16:03 UTC (Wed) by HelloWorld (guest, #56129) [Link] (3 responses)

> Busybox represents an unknown...just because the cases so far have gone a certain way doesn't mean they always will.
Sure, the busybox copyright holders might make you jump through all kinds of hoops if you violate their copyright. Well, don't do that then!

Clarification on a few points

Posted Feb 1, 2012 21:30 UTC (Wed) by bronson (guest, #4806) [Link] (2 responses)

Thanks for that insight on a complex subject.

I guess a similar approach to software quality would be, "just don't write bugs."

Clarification on a few points

Posted Feb 1, 2012 21:42 UTC (Wed) by HelloWorld (guest, #56129) [Link] (1 responses)

How is this a "complex subject"? It's really not that hard to ship a leaflet that explains the customer's rights with the product and put a tarball on an ftp server. All I keep hearing is lame excuses.

Clarification on a few points

Posted Feb 2, 2012 23:13 UTC (Thu) by bronson (guest, #4806) [Link]

Have you negotiated with suppliers? Tried to evaluate their complex and hacky toolchains and whether your project should rely on them? It can get nightmarish even without worrying about GPL compliance.