On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 02:09:15PM +0200, Felipe Contreras wrote: > On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Laurent Bercot <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Some of the arguments from the "other side" found in that > >> thread make sense. We are possibly a bit too aggressive > >> when we try to force people to comply with GPL > >> on other projects too, not only on bbox. > > > > Good quality alternatives are a good thing. If Rob starts his > > Toybox project again, more power to him. If users - whether they > > are individuals or companies - can choose between two similar > > implementations of the same stuff, everyone benefits. > > > > The unfortunate reality is that most companies *really don't want* > > to release their source code. They will either refuse to have > > anything to do with copylefted software, or infringe the copyleft > > more or less blatantly. The "return something to the community" > > idea just does not work with them. > > Companies want to do what companies want to do. If a license really > tries to make them do something they don't want to, then they won't > use the software. Period. > > I think that's a mistake many 'free software' advocates make is that a > license would somehow make companies be good community members. That's > not the case. > > If Sony doesn't want to contribute, that's probably a mistake, but > they are free to make that mistake, and they would do it regardless of > what Matthew Garrett says.
If they don't want to contribute, then they should be subject to a serious competitive disadvantage by being unable to use the best software out there and/or having to spend their resources making in-house replacements. That's the way it's always worked. Rich _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
