On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 1:14 AM, Rich Felker <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 04:47:25PM +0200, Felipe Contreras wrote: >> On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 3:31 PM, Rich Felker <[email protected]> wrote: >> > 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. >> >> But Linux people have not requested GPL enforcement. So you are most >> likely acting against the wishes of the copyright holders. Probably > > In my book the wishes of the copyright holders are virtually > worthless. It's the rights of users that matter. GPL exists to protect > the rights of people who receive software, not the rights of people > who write it. If you write GPL software with the intention of not > enforcing the GPL and discouraging others from enforcing it, and then > use the fact that it's "GPL" to allow yourself to incorporate > thousands of contributions and code snippets adopted from other GPL > projects, you're barely one notch above infringers on the moral > scale..
Yes, that is the all so usual free software vs. open source divide in approaches. It doesn't matter why the GPL exists, it only matters why the copyright holders chose it. If they realize the GPL is doing a disservice to them, they might choose something else. >> >> 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. >> >> Then why are they making Toybox open? Is anybody suing them to do that? No. > > Sony is not making Toybox, not making Toybox open. Toybox is Rob > Landley's project that existed long before Sony had any interest in > it, and it's still unclear how much interest they have in it. I heard > they're paying somebody (not Rob) to work on it, probably because it's > smarter to work with the upstream developer who knows the project > inside out than to fork your own version and develop it in a closed > environment. Right, I was confused. >> Toybox being open source is proof that parts of Sony are good >> citizens, and they would probably be contributing to Busybox if it >> wasn't because of the SFC. > > No, Toybox being open source has nothing to do with Sony. It was open > source many years before Sony was involved. OK. I would say then we would have to wait and see if Sony contributes, but really, the complexities of big companies make it so sometimes by their own policy they cannot contribute directly, so they create a separate entity which can contribute, and they do so under a name that is not sony.com. Crazy, but I've seen it happen _exactly_ like that. Cheers. -- Felipe Contreras _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
