Kuhn: Busybox GPL enforcement concerns resolved

Posted Feb 22, 2012 22:59 UTC (Wed) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510)
In reply to: Kuhn: Busybox GPL enforcement concerns resolved by jiu
Parent article: Kuhn: Busybox GPL enforcement concerns resolved

I'm not sure I am clear what you're asking, but if there's anything you want to know about how SFC enforces the license on Busybox, I can tell you.

Kuhn: Busybox GPL enforcement concerns resolved

Posted Feb 22, 2012 23:45 UTC (Wed) by jiu (guest, #57673) [Link] (1 responses)

I think that what would be better than a response here would be a post summarizing and debunking the misconceptions that led to the initiation of the whole story, clarifying things about SFC's GPL enforcement requests. Maybe this could be collated in an FAQ section of the SFC's website. I understand that you may not want to quote anyone in person as to their misconceptions but the whole story points to a lack of communication on the SFC's part.

Kuhn: Busybox GPL enforcement concerns resolved

Posted Feb 23, 2012 0:40 UTC (Thu) by bkuhn (subscriber, #58642) [Link]

My feeling is that it's not worth it to build an FAQ merely to deal with temporary FUD. Tim Bird said some things that greatly incorrect in the thread. I talked to him, and I think he's unlikely to say them again, because now he knows they weren't true. If you look back at the thread, he's pretty much the only person who was saying such things. I forgave him for it, we sorted out the issue, and it's done. Why build a big FAQ about the whole thing because of some old confusions? I've put up a blog post that explains what Conservancy actually asks for and does in enforcement. That should be enough, IMO.

The saddest part for me now is that had I know my BusyBox mailing list post above was going to get made into an LWN story, I'd have checked it for typos better. There are two of them in there; including one quoted above the fold. :)