UserBusybox

[Andy Green]

Rich Felker wrote:

>> Well, there is the DRM issue. Do you really want unmodifiable signed
>> busybox binaries that circumvent your GPL-granted right to modify the
>> software within hardware that you own? Linus says yes. I'm not sure you
>> should agree.
> 
> GPL does not allow this. It says that the FULL SOURCE CODE for
> generating the binary must be provided under GPL. If a working binary
> that runs on the intended hardware cannot be produced without special
> keys to sign it, then those keys are part of the source code (by
> definition of source code as defined in GPLv2) and thus GPLv2 requires
> them to be included.

GPL2 just talks about giving sources and build scripts to regenerate the 
binary, it says nothing about "intended hardware" or the ability to run 
the resulting regenerated binary on it, or keys.  Just the sources and 
"scripts used to control compilation and installation of the 
executable".  So you can get the makefile that runs gpg but nothing 
about the keys nor any guarantee you can get your binary on a given box. 
  Here:

''...
  3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

     a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
     source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
     1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software 
interchange; or,

     b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
     years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
     cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
     machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
     distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
     customarily used for software interchange; or,

     c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
     to distribute corresponding source code.  (This alternative is
     allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
     received the program in object code or executable form with such
     an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
making modifications to it.  For an executable work, complete source
code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
control compilation and installation of the executable.  However, as a
special exception, the source code distributed need not include
anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary
form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the
operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component
itself accompanies the executable.
...''

But I do have two questions about the apparently proposed 'UserBusybox' 
schism.

  - As a practical matter the difference between the two trees would be 
the licenses of the code that it could incorporate AIUI.  Busybox --> 
GPL2 only code, UserBusybox --> GPL2+ only code.  Is that it?

  - On the GPL2+ model, is it not the recipient (ie, the customer for 
many busybox usage scenarios) that gets to choose which license he views 
the software under?  So he can say, well, I like the GPL3 better, please 
give me your encryption keys?  And that ability comes just from GPL2+ 
licensing?  In this case unless there is a mighty swelling of developer 
support for GPL3 which starves the original busybox tree of critical 
code, I guess UserBusybox will be spurned by many designers of 
commercial products...

-Andy
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 4492 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Url : http://busybox.net/lists/busybox/attachments/20060915/00f0bb25/attachment.bin