On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 8:19 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
True, there are exceptions. >> 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. SamyGo includes much more than just busybox. > 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: Cyanogenmod is not Linux. I am talking about the original _developers_, the ones that wrote Linux, since that's what Android uses, and has not contributed back. >>> > 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 GPLv2§3. The end result for developers (who originally chose the license) is the same; no code contributed back. If they don't release anything (violating the GPL), or if they put their thousands of changes on a single patch in an FTP server (complying with the GPL) doesn't make much difference to the _developers_. > 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). Even if Sony was supporting ToyBox internally, it would not issue any statement publicly, and would encourage employees to refrain from making any statements that the company has not approved. And they don't have a reason to make any statement. Tim Bird is probably being too outspoken, and might get some call of attention to refrain doing so. > 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). But Linux's developers have expressed no interest in the GPL being enforced for their project. > 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. It doesn't matter what outcomes Tim fears, it only matters what Sony lawyers fear, and "the SFC said they wouldn't do it" is not any legal assurance. Somebody else might. > 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. You and I have already a huge difference in opinion in what is desirable and fair regarding how to advance the open source movement. I don't even want to imagine what Sony lawyers are thinking. SFC _can_ shutdown unrelated product lines that are compliant, and SFC _can_ request compliance for things other than busybox. Lawyers are probably not interested in your "goals", but what can be done. >>>>> We don't care about compliance, compliance is almost useless. > > Who is the "we" you are speaking for there? We, the open source community, weather many of us realize it, or not. > 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.... The license is picked by the *developer*, and while it might be desirable to give something to users (I disagree this is the right way), the fact of the matter is that the owner of the code is the *developer*. And if you go against the wishes of the *developer* (which you seem to be doing), that's wrong, even if it's in the name of users. >>>>> 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. Probably not tanks to enforcement. >>>>> 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. If that was the case, developers would pick GPLv3. If they stay with GPLv2, they probably are only interested in getting the modifications back. > 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. Some of them. Certainly not all, nor a significant majority, or you would be enforcing it directly. > 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. Indeed, that's good. Ideally though, you should not be using any project as proxy, and only enforce the projects that have explicitly requested enforcement. Anything else is abusing a loophole. Cheers. -- Felipe Contreras _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
