On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 08:05:26PM +1000, Mark Constable wrote: > On 11/02/12 16:41, Rogelio Serrano wrote: > > we might as well just rewrite linux under a more permissive license... > > Feel free, have fun. Not that anyone cares but I wouldn't be using it. > > I am guessing but I suspect a lot of the intellectual semantics of how > busybox works will be transferred to toybox without attribution. That
This is actually completely false and shows that you haven't even bothered to read the most basic description of Toybox's goals and design principles. In many ways, Busybox has a lot more in common with coreutils, util-linux, BSD, etc. code than with Toybox, because the latter is a clean implementation largely from scratch written largely from the standards rather than from copying implementation behavior. > is all fine and legal but I would be curious to know if a close parallel > project like toybox has in any way contributed *anything* back to the > busybox project even though they are "borrowing" the core concept? The "core concept" (a multi-function binary) is neither an original concept nor a valuable one. The value of Busybox is not any abstract concepts but simply the facts that it works, it's relatively complete, and it's very small. > Guessing again, I suspect not and if so then it nicely illustrates why > the the GPL is important and should be enforced where ever possible, to > help prevent one way dilution of intellectual concepts, let alone code. I'm not quite sure what "prevent one way dilution of intellectual concepts" means, but it sounds very scary and antithetical to the goals of even the most zealous free software advocates... Rich _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
