Felipe Contreras wrote at 15:16 (EST) yesterday: >>>> Enforcement only ensures that we would get the bare minimum (legal) >>>> from the company, and IMO that doesn't help much.
OpenWRT and SamyGo are two excellent counterexamples. While in both cases, BusyBox GPL enforcement yielded only a bare minimum release, that bare minimum was enough to spawn new upstream projects. > On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 03:00:38PM +0200, Felipe Contreras wrote: >> And few people, if any, would be interested in updating busybox on >> their TVs, or such. With regard to TV's, in particular, SamyGo is a clear counter-example on that point as well. Felipe Contreras wrote at 15:16 (EST) yesterday: >>>> Google's Android team opens their code (eventually), but most of >>>> that code has not been merged to the Linux kernel, therefore, it's >>>> basically useless to developers. I think the Cyanogenmod community -- both users and developers -- would disagree with you on that. As a Cyangoenmod user, I certainly do. And, as Rich Felker pointed out elsewhere in the thread: >> > 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 developers care about its utility to them, they can read and >>> merge the code. 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. Felipe Contreras also wrote at 15:16 (EST) yesterday: >>>> many people are angry about [Android kernel code not being >>>> upstream], and have called Android a fork. How are you going to >>>> solve this? Suing? AFAICT, the Google release of Android's Linux fork is in compliance with GPL, which means the community has access to the improvements. I think it's a mistake to conflate issues raised by forking (which GPL permits) with issues raised by complete failure to comply with GPLv2ยง3. Rich Felker wrote at 08:31 (EST): > 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. While I agree with Rich's statement above, I want to reiterate that getting "scripts to control compilation and installation of the executable" for BusyBox is an essential issue under GPLv2 and those scripts are likely very different from firmware to firmware. At least, I've seen them to be quite different in various source releases I've helped liberate through GPL enforcement for BusyBox. >> 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. I can confirm this. Indeed, IIRC, every BusyBox enforcement I've been involved with has started with a report from a curious user who found BusyBox in a device or firmware that (s)he bought/downloaded. >> 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. Well, to be fair to Sony, I'm not aware of any Sony GPL violation. <[email protected]> has gotten a few vague reports, but I've never seen a confirmed violation by Sony, so I presume they're abiding by GPL currently. While this might not make them a "good citizen", I think the fact of Sony's apparent GPL compliance means the statement quoted above is an exaggeration. Laurent Bercot wrote at 11:08 (EST) today: >>>>> Toybox wasn't made by Sony. Toybox was made by Rob Landley. Sony >>>>>is merely *using* Toybox. Indeed. I encourage everyone to be fair to Tim Bird on this: Tim claims that Sony *doesn't* support the ToyBox initiative, but that it's his personal support that he's given to Rob and ToyBox. I've pointed out to Tim that it is confusing that he's giving that support using his sony.com email address, which is what led me to believe it was a Sony initiative. But Tim has clarified this point publicly, so I am going to take Tim at his word on that (but I'll continue to encourage Tim to cease using his sony.com email address to endorse things that Sony doesn't endorse). FWIW, I'm trying to schedule a meeting with Tim Bird at Embedded Linux Conference next week. I still maintain that a lot of what Tim posted on the LWN thread is based on second-hand confusions and misrepresentations of Conservancy's and Erik Andersen's positions in BusyBox GPL enforcement actions. My hope is that I can convince Tim that there's no reason to have such great fear of GPL (and, after all, Sony will still be using Linux, which is also GPL'd). I don't think any of the outcomes Tim fears are likely to happen -- at least due to Conservancy enforcement, anyway. I hope I can convince Tim of this fact when I see him. As for Rob Landley, I have told Rob on IRC this: I support his right to write any Free Software he likes under any license -- copyleft or permissive. More Free Software is always good for the world, regardless of the motivations that led to its authorship. I also think healthy competition for BusyBox, with a very different approach to the same problem set, is a good thing, no matter what reason it comes. > On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn <[email protected]> wrote: >> The question is whether or not Conservancy, as BusyBox's enforcement >> agent, would *insist* that a company stop distributing *compliant* >> products when other products are out of compliance. Felipe Contreras wrote at 15:16 (EST) yesterday: >>>> Yes, but s/would/could/. From what I've read, you make no >>>> distinction on product lines. And that's worrying. I'm curious to know what you've read that makes you believe that. I said pretty clearly in my previous emails that Conservancy's goal in BusyBox enforcement is to avoid doing many things that copyright law would allow us to do, in the interest of friendly discussions with the violator. I think what you might have read might have been FUD, or perhaps a misconstruing of something I wrote. >>>> We don't care about compliance, compliance is almost useless. Who is the "we" you are speaking for there? I care about compliance, because I care about users who got a product without an source nor offer therefor. I know Erik cares about that, too. I think others do as well.... >>>> What we need is for them to become members of the community, and that >>>> can only happen within, by a change in culture, understanding how open >>>> source works. ... Nevertheless, I fully agree with you on that. A lot of the process of enforcement is an education effort to help companies join our community. Some do, and some have. There are many past violators who are now participants in Free Software development. >>>> GPL is not important; it's just a tool. What is important for >>>> developers is to get contributions back. That's one important issue. Another important issue is that users get the ability to take advantage of new versions of the software, or make modified distributions for their devices using the source that the developers licensed to them under GPL. Felipe Contreras wrote 09:51 (EST) today: >>>> But Linux people have not requested GPL enforcement. First of all, for years, Linux developers have come up to me at conferences and told me confidentially that they thank me and BusyBox for Conservancy's enforcement work, but for political reasons they couldn't get involved with enforcement. That said, Denys and I have had some discussion about getting more projects involved with Conservancy's enforcement, and I think that's worth doing. I'm working on that issue this month, and hopefully I will have an announcement about it in March. -- Bradley M. Kuhn, Executive Director, Software Freedom Conservancy _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
