[BusyBox] Licence

[david stevenson]

On Wednesday 10 December 2003 7:18 pm, Erik Andersen wrote:
> On Wed Dec 10, 2003 at 06:03:10PM +0000, david stevenson wrote:
> > Eric I note your hall of shame page.  I do not know what the
> > companies listed have released, but I would like to confirm
> > that a commercial embedded product can include both busybox and
> > non gpl code.
> >
> > My understanding is any modifications or linked code would have
> > to be gpl, but a separate standalone program, could be called
> > from a busybox init without being seen as a derived work. Is
> > this correct?
>
> You are correct.
>
> A commercial product can certainly contain BusyBox.  I consider
> the use of BusyBox in commercial products a good thing.  The fact
> that a product contains BusyBox does not in any way restrict said
> product from containing other non GPL code.  Just because you use
> BusyBox and/or run on Linux you do not need to give away all your
> code.
>
> But you are however obligated to distribute the complete source
> code to the exact version of BusyBox distributed with your
> product, as well as the complete source code to the exact version
> of the Linux kernel, and the complete source code for any other
> GPL licenses components contained within your product.
>
> Some people choose to distribute the source on a CD accompanying
> their product.  Others choose to simply include a blurb within
> their product docs that says something like:
>
>     This product uses software licensed under Open Source
>     licenses such as the GPL.  You have the right to acquire this
>     source code, change it, and re-distribute it.  The warranty
>     on our product is only applicable however if you are using
>     the official firmware distributed by us.  The source for the
>     Open Source software contained in this product is available
>     as a free download here <URL>. If you would like a copy of
>     the source code for this product on a CD, please send your
>     request to <our address> along with $9.99 to cover our cost
>     to prepare and mail the CD to you.
>
> If you distribute your products' firmware online, you should also
> make the source code for the Open Source components such as
> BusyBox available online.
>
> Does that make things a bit more clear as to what is and is not
> legal?

Yes, Thanks - I was just having a bad moment.