On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 03:00:38PM +0200, Felipe Contreras wrote: > > What matters a lot more is utility to users who have > > received Android devices, who want to be able to use their hardware > > without the encumbrance of the vendor-shipped crapware. The fact that > > the source code is public and free makes a huge difference to them. > > If their devices are not locked. > > And few people, if any, would be interested in updating busybox on > their TVs, or such.
That's why it's so important that Busybox act as a proxy to enforcement of other GPL infringement. The important thing to get is the kernel and other system components. Busybox is likely unmodified or barely-modified anyway. > Besides, if you really care about users, why not wait until some user > requests GPL enforcement? I bet many consumer devices would not have a > single user that requests that. That's what Busybox does. It seems you're completely unaware of what you're talking about, because almost all Busybox enforcement efforts stem from users being upset to find Busybox on a device they bought and want to hack around with, and no sign of source code anywhere. > They already have a competitive advantage. Enforcement is only making > companies that otherwise be good citizens (Sony) walk away, > fragmenting the community, and decreasing the competitive advantage of > compliant companies. Sony is the antithesis of "good citizen" in every possible way. Rich _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
