Felipe Contreras wrote:
On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 8:19 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn <bk...@ebb.org> 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.
There are more exceptions.
You seem to imply that without enforcement of the GPL, there would
magically appear more companies who want to contribute to open source,
but you provide no argument why that would happen. In fact, the opposite
is true. The companies that comply with the GPL do that anyway. Most of
that other companies do the bare minimum to comply with the GPL. They
also do the bare minimum to comply with BSD code, which means they do
nothing, although it would be trivially easy for them to share their
modifications.
If you say the the code is licensed under the GPL, but you promise to
never enforce the license, you might as well call it public domain. And
if you are not prepared to sue as a last resort, all other attempts of
enforcement are futile in most cases. Companies don't ignore the GPL
because it is so hard to understand, they deal with much more
complicated contracts. They ignore the GPL because they can, and you
seem to imply that they should be free to do so.
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.
You seem to want to dismiss the fact your claim was wrong that users
aren't interested in the source for busybox and other programs on their
devices.
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.
The sources are available, that does not mean that anybody is forced to
use these modification.
As you specifically mention the Linux kernel, a lot of companies have
contributed code that is in the main kernel, so there has been benefit
for the original developers. Other code is considered not good enough
for inclusion in the main kernel, but the code it there, and it is
possible to use and improve this code.
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.
Sony's fears seem very important for you.
Maybe it hasn't occurred to you or to Sony's lawyers, but from a legal
point of view they could get exactly the same result if they say "Here
on this server is the source for busybox x.y.z, it includes the
configuration we used to build the binary". (Of course, they should not
just say that, but also do it.) That shouldn't be too complicated, they
would be in full compliance, and it would be much easier than to replace
busybox and test a replacement.
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.
Microsoft could send an update that breaks an important application,
they reserved the right to do that in the EULA, and it has happened in
the past. They could come and audit Sony's use of OEM licenses, or force
them to buy a license even for machines that don't use Windows. All of
this is more likely to happen.
And as I mentioned, complying with the GPL is really easy, and that
removes even the last shadow of any risk of becoming the target of GPL
enforcement.
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.
Please speak just for yourself and don't pretend to speak for anybody else.
By the way, a grep for your name in the busybox source finds nothing.
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.
Two hints on this:
- If the developer picked the GPL, he probably wanted it respected. If
not, he should have been honest and called it public domain.
- SFC is not the developer, they can't do anything themselves. They just
act on behalf of the developer, so they can't go against the wishes of
the developer, which you imply not just as a possibility but as a fact.
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.
Actually mist likely due 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.
The main point of the GPL since v1 to give the uses of the software the
rights and the possibility to modify the software and to use this
modified software. From GPLv1: "The license agreements of most software
companies try to keep *users* at the mercy of those companies. By
contrast, our ...".
It seems (once more) you don't know what you are talking about. The
start of the GPL was that RMS was, as a user of a printer driver, unable
to adapt it because he didn't get the source.
The GPLv3 is mainly a clarification because when GPLv2 was written, they
didn't foresee that it would be possible for a user to have the source
and not be able to use it on the intended device.
After all that you wrote, your concern for the fears of Sony's lawyers,
after you call Sony "good citizens", I just wonder, do you happen to
work for Sony?
Ralf
_______________________________________________
busybox mailing list
busybox@busybox.net
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
