LMAO! http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/12/former-busybox-contributor-upset-about-gpl-lawsuit.ars
------ Former BusyBox contributor upset about GPL lawsuit BusyBox creator Bruce Perens hasn't contributed to the project in years, but that hasn't stopped him from whining about the SFLC's recent lawsuit against consumer electronics companies that are violating the software's license. By Ryan Paul | Last updated about 7 hours agoText Size Print this articleLeave a commentBruce Perens, the original creator of BusyBox, posted a statement in his blog on Tuesday to complain about the GPL enforcement lawsuit that was recently initiated by the Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) against consumer electronics companies that are failing to comply with the licensing terms under which BusyBox is distributed. BusyBox, which provides an interactive shell and a number of command-line tools in a single executable, has become popular in the embedded Linux market. Perens launched the BusyBox project in 1996 but did not have any role in maintaining it. All subsequent development on the tool has been done entirely without his involvement. Following a confrontation with Perens over a relicensing plan in 2006, the current maintainers conducted a code audit which demonstrated that virtually all of the code originally contributed by Perens is no longer present in the current code base. Perens still insists on lobbing occasional barbs at the current maintainers whenever he gets a good opportunity, and he's apparently also not happy with the fact that the SFLC hasn't gone out of its way to include him in the lawsuits. "Much as other Busybox developers wish to support the general cause of getting companies to comply with simple Free Software Licenses, some of the other developers and I are becoming annoyed with Mr. Andersen and Mr. Landley's apparent violation of our own rights, and SFLC's treatment of our interest. We have held off, to date, to avoid confusing issues, but our patience is limited." He uses the phrase "other developers" several times in his statement in reference to other people who have suffered various perceived wrongs allegedly perpetrated by the current maintainers, but he's not exactly specific. Nobody else has come forward to complain, and his effort to nominate himself as the spokesperson, despite not having contributed code to the project in years, is disingenuous. His grievances also don't change the fact that the current maintainers, as present copyright holders, have sufficient standing to file the lawsuit. The situation reflects one of the challenges of community-driven development. People who have otherwise disconnected from a project still feel a sense of ownership after they stop contributing, and they can sometimes become a burden on the active maintainers who have new goals and a different philosophical vision. Further reading Bruce Perens (perens.com) BusyBox code audit (busybox.net) Click here to view comments on this article.Loading Comments: Reader Comments CommentOstracus quote: Following a confrontation with Perens over a relicensing plan in 2006, the current maintainers conducted a code audit which demonstrated that virtually all of the code originally contributed by Perens is no longer present in the current code base. Perens still insists on lobbing occasional barbs at the current maintainers whenever he gets a good opportunity, and he's apparently also not happy with the fact that the SFLC hasn't gone out of its way to include him in the lawsuits. Buy that man a copy of "How to win friends and influence people". about 7 hours ago | permalink | quote Kalkin At least he didn't murder his wife. about 7 hours ago | permalink | quote campitel quote: Originally posted by Kalkin: At least he didn't murder his wife. Very good point. about 7 hours ago | permalink | quote atergo quote: Originally posted by campitel: quote: Originally posted by Kalkin: At least he didn't murder his wife. Very good point. Does that mean he murdered someone else's wife? about 6 hours ago | permalink | quote BrucePerens Gee Ryan, it was really fair of you to publish that without even bothering to call me and get my side of the issue. I can't think of a way they could have started with my code base and would not be derivative of my code base today. Rob Langley attempted to prove in 2006 otherwise using a very misguided interpretation of Judge Walker's means for finding non-literal copyright. This was wrong because the copying was literal, and a direct derivative work - the successive generations of the program show how they started with my code base directly and arrived at today's version. One of the other Busybox developers I am dealing with is Dave Cinege, who ran the Linux router project for 2 years and eventually handed development to Andersen. about 6 hours ago | permalink | quote cripes +1 Bruce Perens. Couldn't really find what was disingenuous in Perens post. Did you even try to contact him, Ryan? about 6 hours ago | permalink | quote ArsEitje quote: Originally posted by BrucePerens: Gee Ryan, it was really fair of you to publish that without even bothering to call me and get my side of the issue. Welcome to New Media, cowboy! about 6 hours ago | permalink | quote Joe Buck Bruce, You are aware, of course, of FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD. All of those started with the proprietary Unix code base; the bits owned by AT&T were systematically ripped out to form a freely redistributable but incomplete distribution, and a variety of people completed enough replacement code to form a working Unix clone. AT&T sued over the matter, and essentially lost. They could make (and did make) a very similar argument to the one you made: BSD was transformed incrementally from a proprietary system to a free one, and it maintained a number of structures from the proprietary system. You would have a stronger case if you could point to current code that you wrote. Since you haven't done that, it raised the question of whether you can. You also should consider whether it would be harmful to the free software cause should you prevail, should you try to make a legal issue of this. Why is it beneficial to raise the bar that a cloner must meet? about 6 hours ago | permalink | quote flooey While it probably would have been nicer if the SFLC talked to Mr. Perens, I'm not sure what he's referring to when he says that his rights are being violated. Assuming Mr. Andersen's code is part of BusyBox, which nobody seems to be disputing, he can sue someone for GPL violations, regardless of whether another copyright holder would like him to. about 6 hours ago | permalink | quote xoa Bruce Perens, I normally follow you on Slashdot not here, and I'm still sorting through all the comments in the article there so I apologize if you've already addressed this somewhere. But my thoughts basically mirrored Joe Buck's above. First, there are multiple examples of projects re-implementing copyrighted code and having no issues owning the resulting copyright. Unless you are asserting that you possess a software patent covering BusyBox, I don't see any legal basis for being able to have protection for ideas, rather then an expression of code. If they've replaced your code, it doesn't matter if it does the exact same thing, it's still theirs not yours. Second, and perhaps more pertinent, I'm not sure exactly what your issue is anyway, so perhaps you could clarify? After all it seems like regardless of whether you still have some copyright claims regarding the code, based on the GPL as long as they have copyright claims too they have standing to sue regardless of your wishes. What exactly are you aiming for here? Just to get copies of all the legal details, or do you want to verify if there are requested monetary damages and in turn want a cut in that case? about 6 hours ago | permalink | quote BrucePerens Joe, The USG v. BSD case was different in that their copyright was weaker - they hadn't placed the correct statement on their software to copyright it, and it wasn't until a later Bern Copyright Convention was ratified by Congress that copyright happened by default the moment you set a word down as it does today. Also, they had dirty hands as they had infringed upon the BSD work - and that's all I can remember without reading the case but there's probably more. Obviously I would be quietly bringing suit, rather than posting a public complaint, if I wished to bring a case at all. I don't wish to raise the bar for cloners, not that I think this case would do so. But unfortunately while I am not a party I don't get to see the terms of the suits. As it happens, my copyright statements are still in some of the files in the latest releases. So, as far as I'm aware, any attempt to say my code was not in there was bunk, and IMO I'm not sure the work Landley claimed to have done in 2006 to prove that ever really happened - he just wrote about it as if it had. about 5 hours ago | permalink | quote Argel @ Joe Buck and xao: Groklaw has some interesting articles dealing with BSD. If you read up on it enough you will see that there is no comparison. The really short, over-simplified version is that whether the UNIX code was actually copyrighted or in the public domain came into dispute. In this case, there is no dispute that the code is copyrighted. So there really is no comparison. http://www.groklaw.net/article...ry=20041121063628466 http://www.groklaw.net/article...ry=20031124074251389 about 5 hours ago | permalink | quote BrucePerens "xoa", Well, without being a party to the suit I can't see the settlement terms. And IMO I should, and other developers should, and should be included in them when appropriate. Now, it may be that the only terms were to compensate Andersen, Landley, and SFLC for their work in bringing the infringers into compliance, rather than to collect inflated damages. I would not be asking for that. And there are a number of issues of getting the Busybox developers themselves to comply with copyright law and the GPL with regard to my work and that of others. And I'm concerned that an organization that is supposed to provide Free Software developers with gratis legal counsel is locking me out and that I might end up having to get a non-gratis lawyer to nudge them. about 5 hours ago | permalink | quote runexe I suppose a relevant question (and probably one that requires a lawyer) to ask is if some making a derivative work has or has not the ability to sue others for (apparent) copyright infringement when *their* derived work is infringed upon. In other words: if I took the Linux kernel, made a derivative work out of it, released it back to the internet (in a manner complying with the terms of the license I received with the original Linux kernel), and it was used by some company in their devices sold, and they failed to comply with the requirements of the license I released my work under, can I sue them on my own, or must I round up every single author that ever contributed to the linux kernel and/or my derived work? I would imagine that any one who has contributed to such a work would have standing to sue - but the terms of the settlement would presumably be weighted based on the amount of contribution (or some other measure agreed to by the judge, or the parties themselves). But I'm no lawyer. about 5 hours ago | permalink | quote The Troubleshooting Ninja Bruce, While I really don't know enough about this topic to agree or disagree with your position I can at least respect the way you have come here and stated your position in a civil manner. Meanwhile I am disappointed that as of yet Ars has not responded to your post, nor apparently did they ever solicit you for your side beforehand. As you are a respected member and representative of the FLOSS community I hope somebody from Ars will show you the courtesy of a response rather than treat you like an anonymous crackpot. EDIT: For grammar. about 4 hours ago | permalink | quote sf0sean I think Ryan Paul does a lot of great work here. However, only after reading through the comments did I have any idea what this dispute is about or what's at stake. I had the impression that Mr. Perens was somehow upset that the SFLC was trying to enforce the GPL as applied to code he contributed under the GPL. Huh? Whether or not Mr. Perens has a valid claim to code in Busybox is an interesting and apparently complex copyright issue, but a myopic one to focus on in this case. This dispute offers an opportunity to discuss the much more important issue of how GPL violations are handled, especially as FLOSS gets on in years, greybeards become whitebeards (and eventually return unto star stuff), and projects transition to new leadership groups or new benevolent dictators. We cannot have splinter groups of current OR past developers acting unilaterally on behalf of their fellows who wish and have valid legal right to be involved. Someday it won't be a programmer committed to FLOSS who wishes to assert her rights without derailing the train; it will be her heirs. about 3 hours ago | permalink | quote audioSE I don't think that calling Mr. Perens' statement 'whining' is very fair. about 3 hours ago | permalink | quote ioneil I am a bit confused by Mr. Perens position as well, along the lines of runexe's query. If an author creates a legal, derived work (call it version 2) by licensing (via the GPL) the work of another (call it version 1), then the work they create is still theirs. They may not have standing if a literal section of the work that is copied is wholly present in version 1, but if there is any of version 2, then *both* individuals have standing. Given that the busybox project evolved in this manner, it seems entirely appropriate that the current maintainers (and, indeed, any subset of prior contributors) have standing. All of the authors have, in succession, offered to license their work to others according to the GPL. Mrs. Andersen and Landley took accepted the license from Mr.Perens, and created a subsequent version. Now that individuals have used *their* derived work without a license, they can move toward GPL enforcement. That Mr. Perens doesn't like it seems irrelevant. In order for me to be convinced, Mr. Perens needs to do one of two things: * describe how they have violated the GPL by excluding him from their enforcement effort * identify some other legal statute/principle/obligation by which they are bound >From where I stand, their only obligations to prior authors are defined by the GPL; they've met them, and can legally do whatever they want. about 3 hours ago | permalink | quote Black Eagle "identify some other legal statute/principle/obligation by which they are bound" How about the principle that if you're suing on behalf of a software project that someone is closely associated with in the minds of the public (or at least a geeky subsection thereof), it would be good manners to them a call ahead of time? about an hour ago | permalink | quote freshmeat The copyright issues are not as complex as many non-lawyers would make them out to be. "Copyright" and "Derivative Works" have specific meanings. A somewhat oversimplified explanation (as I do not have first-hand knowledge of the specifics at issue here) of the issue is this: If A creates a work, we'll call it "Code", at the moment of the creation of Code (fixation in a tangible medium, actually, but we'll speak somewhat generally here), A owns the copyright in Code. One of the five rights of copyright held by A is the right to make derivative works of Code. A derivative work is a work based on a preexisting work (in this case, the Code). If B comes along and makes a derivative work of the Code, we'll call it NewCode, then B has infringed A's copyright. As the use of the pre-exisitng work was unlawful, B has nothing but trouble If, however, A license the right to make a derivative work to B, then we have two copyrights - the copyright in Code, held by A, and the copyright in NewCOde, held by B. Two extremly important points here: in a commercial setting, A's license grant to B often requires B to assign back to A any copyright B holds in NewCode, but that is a contractual obligation of B, not default copyright law. And B's copyright in NewCode only extends to the new materials added by B, so, as a practial matter, to use NewCode, you need a license to Code, too. However, if, after several iterations of derivative works, all of Code has been replaced by newly written code in NewCode, NewCode is no longer a derivative work of Code. It is a derivative work of an earlier iteration of NewCode, but if B holds that copyright, A is out of the picture. In other words, A's copyright in Code does not magically attach to the new code in NewCode. This is pretty basic copyright law. Where things get tricky when we apply this to the BusyBox: in copyright, but especially with software copyright, you can infringe without literal copying if your "new" code is substantially similar. And, for example, translating a literary work into a new language, or rewriting software code in a new language, is not enough, in itself, to avoid infringement. So it is possible that a diff of Perens code against the current code base would show few similarities, and yet the new code, if merely a slight modification of Perens code, could still infringe Perens copyright. If "new" work was substantially similar to an original work to the point that the new work would infringe the author's copyright in the original work, is not "new" in the legal sense, but rather merely a copy of the author's original work. This conflates infringement, a legal term, with the colloquial definition of author (but not unreasonably so), and appears to be one of the bases for Perens' claim that he is still an author of Busybox. (The other being that there still may be his original code in the codebase) As a practical matter, though, as raised above, the GPL defines the downstream user's obligations to the upstream author, and the GPL allows a downstream user to make derivative works, as long as certain restrictions are observed (the viral nature of the GPL itself being the most prominent). A downstream author does not need an upstream author's permission to enforce the GPL license of the downstream author's derivative works, so whether or not BusyBox has Peren's code or is, at this point, a "new" work is immaterial. 29 minutes ago | permalink | quote Decade quote: Originally posted by ioneil: I am a bit confused by Mr. Perens position as well, along the lines of runexe's query. If an author creates a legal, derived work (call it version 2) by licensing (via the GPL) the work of another (call it version 1), then the work they create is still theirs. ... In order for me to be convinced, Mr. Perens needs to do one of two things: * describe how they have violated the GPL by excluding him from their enforcement effort * identify some other legal statute/principle/obligation by which they are bound >From where I stand, their only obligations to prior authors are defined by the GPL; they've met them, and can legally do whatever they want. >From how I read the referenced material, Perens is arguing that Landley et. al. have, in fact, not met the obligations of the GPL. In fact, he's arguing that they removed his own attributions, along with a couple other ancient maintainers' attributions, in order to do stuff with the project not in keeping with his original intent. In particular, Landley and the current Busybox maintainers wanted to remove the "or later" clause from the original GPLv2 license so they could use Linux kconfig. quote: Originally posted by BrucePerens: As it happens, my copyright statements are still in some of the files in the latest releases. So, as far as I'm aware, any attempt to say my code was not in there was bunk, and IMO I'm not sure the work Landley claimed to have done in 2006 to prove that ever really happened - he just wrote about it as if it had. Hm. Yes. Landley does act like he did what he planned to do, without bothering to actually do it. Of course, as Perens is the author claiming unjust taking, I would hope that he's able to substantiate these claims further than just saying so. In particular, Landley seems to claim that the structure of the program is substantially changed from Perens' original version, and therefore any remaining contributions are in replaceable applets. Any similarity in the structure is merely due to efficiency concerns, which is not copyrightable. Perens seems to claim that the current structure of the program is an incremental change to the original structure, using the original code as a reference, and so is substantially still his idea. At this point, I suspect that a court will have to sort this out, and neither side seems to want to sue the other. 4 minutes ago | permalink | quote ------ regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
