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

Rob Landley rob at landley.net
Fri Jun 30 00:11:08 UTC 2006


On Thursday 29 June 2006 12:14 pm, yan wrote:
> I guess for me the issue is this:
>
> I have built a toolchain for a particular hardware platform I work on.
> I am not the primary developer, nor the hardware manufacturer, just a
> user.  I built the toolchain to address some isues that were present in
> the toolchain provided by the manufacturer.

If your distribution is noncommercial you fall under 3(c), which explicitly 
allows you to point upstream.

Even if it's commercial, you can post a "sources available upon request" 
notice which is 3(b), and give people who ask you a URL to where it can be 
downloaded right now.  (And if they complain about that, ask them if they 
want it file attached to an email.)

Nothing in the license says you have to put it up on one of your web servers.  
You can ask them to mail you a blank CD and a self-addressed stamped 
envelope.

> But the way I read v3, I also have to make available a) all of Dan
> Kegel's stuff, b) a source tarball for everything that goes into it.

Isn't it great that this source isn't under v3 yet?

I've pretty much already made up my mind that BusyBox is never going v3 only.  
The question is whether we drop the "or later" from v2.

> That's absurd, and for me, it will lead to removing those files from my
> website.

Yup.  I'm trying to figure out if that's Stallman's intent or if he's just 
gone crazy.

Rob
-- 
Never bet against the cheap plastic solution.



More information about the busybox mailing list