On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 4:47 AM, Ralf Friedl <[email protected]> wrote: > Felipe Contreras wrote: >> >> 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. >> > > 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.
It depends on what kinds of enforcement; abusive company-wide-without-regards-to-specific-units, that is also started as a proxy without consent from the original copy-right holders; no, I don't think companies would be too happy to use such code, much less contribute to it. > In fact, the opposite is true. Right... there is absolutely no company that avoids the GPL because of this abusive enforcement. Wait a second, what about Sony? Sure, maybe Sony is not a good community member _today_, but it might be at some point, and it would certainly not be contributing to busybox. I am pretty sure there's plenty of companies that they only lesson they learned from being targets of GPL enforcement is to avoid GPL code. > 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. Some do the minimum, not all. I already explained that for *developers* the bare minimum is almost worthless, what is needed is community involvement, and walking around with a stick does not help a single bit. > 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. Do not tell me what I expect from the licensees, that's up to me to decide. I expect contributions back. If you are a good member of society, you most likely will at least publish your modifications, that's good, but I strongly prefer if you contribute back. If you are a bad member of society, expect bad publicity, as you are not doing what you are supposed to do. > And if you are > not prepared to sue as a last resort, all other attempts of enforcement are > futile in most cases. I don't care. No amount of enforcement is going to make them send clean patches to the mailing list, so why should I care? > 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. Companies are not single entities, like people, but it seems that concept just doesn't sink in with many people. >>>> 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. So you are saying that there's people out there that want to update *only* busybox on their TV's? I find that hard to believe. >>> 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. Not thanks to enforcement. There's no stick you can use to achieve that. > 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. It's _possible_ but nobody is going to do it. The only *efficient* way to achieve this without loosing one's sanity is to actively invite companies to become part of the community, and educate them about the benefits, and only then, they might go through all the processes needed to write clean patches, so one, as a maintainer of a project, can just apply them, and only _then_ does everybody wins. Sticks don't help that. >>> 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. Sony != Sony lawyers. Being involved with Nokia lawyers I can tell you that Nokia engineers didn't agree with many things, and it's oh so frustrating. A lot of the issues can't even be mentioned publicly. So when you say Sony should do this, I can't help but roll my eyes. You can blame Sony all you want, but that just tells me you don't know how big companies work. >>> 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. No, it's not, because Sony (or rather some people inside Sony) knows _exactly_ how to retaliate, and Microsoft knows that. They can't do absolutely anything if the SFC pursues these courses of actions. > 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. Not for a big company. >>>>>>> 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. And assumption, and not true. Look at the public call from Mathew Garret for Linux kernel developers to request kernel enforcement... He got squat. > If not, he should have been honest and called it public domain. Interesting theory. Then it should be easy to get enforcement request for copyright holders all over. Why is that not happening? You can assume all you want, facts don't check. > - 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. Unless the developer is not aware of what you are doing, or doesn't care enough to contact you. Since you have not *explicitly* requested permission, that's a very valid (and quite likely) possibility. >>>>>>> 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. Sure, now you rely on Stockholm syndrome. You stay with your sticks, I prefer carrots. >>>>>>> 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. That's the main point *for you*. For open source people it's to get contributions back. The license is *for developers*. As tivoization exemplifies, you can't do squat for users with a *software* license, and that's fine. > 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. What RMS intended and what the copyright holders intended can be diametrically opposed. See Linus Torvalds. > 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. I hope I don't have to tell you that there's plenty of people that don't like GPLv3 and prefer to stay with GPLv2 *precisely* for this reason. How do you explain that? If people care enough about SFC activities, they might migrate away from GPLv2 as well, or at least add come clauses. > 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? I thought Sony was pushing for toybox, so I supposed they would contribute back. If they are not going to do that _today_, that's fine, I'm sure they will eventually understand the benefits of open source, not thanks to the SFC. Cheers. -- Felipe Contreras _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
