The FSF's being stupid again, it seems...

[Jason Schoon]

On 6/28/06, Natanael Copa <natanael.copa at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > probably whoever natanael's giving his distro to doesn't really care,
>
> If they ask for the source I'd be happy to help them to send them. If
> this casues problem for you (or kernel.org - im using the kernel too)
> I'd do whatever I can to help.
>
> > but what if it were montavista saying, "our source comes straight
> > from redhat -- go to them" -- would that be okay?  i don't think so.
> >
> > as far as busybox goes, i don't see how this affects the project
> > at all.  we (the project itself) don't distribute binary releases
> > at all, right?
>
> Yes. this is a non-problem for busybox. It's worse for me...


The Slashdot discussion pointed this out several times, but this shouldn't
need to be a big problem for you.  The license never states that you have to
make all of the source available for free, simply that it must be available,
possibly at a reasonable cost of distribution.  This means that you could
simply have a statement on the website, offering to burn a CD of the source,
and ship it to them for the cost of postage, the CD, and some small amount
for your time.  That is sufficient to satisfy the terms.

I actually considered going this route with my company, as getting anything
done on our website is a chore.  However, in the end it turns out it would
cost us much more to have someone doing this task, rather than just throwing
it up on the website.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/attachments/20060628/81d7a9a3/attachment-0001.htm