|
|
Log in / Subscribe / Register

About the calculus for the project

About the calculus for the project

Posted Feb 1, 2012 21:47 UTC (Wed) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
In reply to: About the calculus for the project by tbird20d
Parent article: A tempest in a toybox

"I believe eliminating the possibility of a license violation is a valid, although not ideal, solution. "

You can't do that. GPL still remains in play because everyone who ships busybox also ships the Linux kernel. It takes only one key kernel developer to ask SFC to represent them and you are back to the problem you are trying to get away from. I do wonder whether SFC or FSF would be sending kernel patches in key areas with the sole idea of using it to enforce the GPL at the kernel level directly instead of using busybox as a proxy. At the point, the violators can consider using a BSD kernel. It would be a interesting fight to watch.


to post comments

About the calculus for the project

Posted Feb 2, 2012 8:54 UTC (Thu) by fb (guest, #53265) [Link]

> GPL still remains in play because everyone who ships busybox also ships the Linux kernel. It takes only one key kernel developer to ask SFC to represent them and you are back to the problem you are trying to get away from. I do wonder whether SFC or FSF would be sending kernel patches in key areas with the sole idea of using it to enforce the GPL at the kernel level directly instead of using busybox as a proxy.

Awesome. If that is the case, why are all this people decrying the possibility of losing their legal proxy?

Why make a big fuss if someone (actually the former Busybox maintainer) is working on a competing project?


Copyright © 2026, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds