Busybox under closed-source-license avaiable?

Roberto A. Foglietta roberto.foglietta at gmail.com
Tue Oct 14 10:02:19 UTC 2008


2008/10/14 Rob Landley <rob at landley.net>:
> On Monday 13 October 2008 09:39:55 Roberto A. Foglietta wrote:

>
> Last I heard, the SFLC was still looking for a company stupid enough to
> actually take a suit all the way to a judgement.  So far, nobody's wanted to
> face down the steamroller once it becomes clear to them how badly they'll
> lose.

 I do not think you will found in U.S. and I do not think it will be
about busybox. Not in U.S. because it would costs too much, not about
busybox because it does not make any sense for busybox as Alain M.
wrote.

>
>> Unfortunately I think is true what
>> Novell/SuSE has written in their site: in future we will see a growing
>> of dynamic linking against GPL software APIs (some smart, some
>> malicious and some stupid).
>
> Out of curiosity, are you quoting their position before or after Microsoft
> gave them half a billion dollars and people like Jeremy Allison quit in
> protest?
>

 I see

 http://www.novell.com/linux/microsoft

> Look: Linux has been under GPLv2 for _seventeen_years_.  The license is not
> exactly new and untested.  Busybox is under the same license as the Linux
> kernel for a _reason_.
>

 This is one of the reasons because I like GPLv2 more than v3.

> I just deleted a longish paragraph pointing out how long I've personally been
> following these issues, because I then noticed the following paragraph:
>
>> Such critical mass would turn up the verdict in favour of
>> Novell's point of view
>
> You know this a priori?
>

 People who believe it is impossible to fly do not fly. Remove the
believing of impossibility of flying then flying became a difficult
task to accomplish but people start to face it. Let enough people
trying to fly, wait enough time and you will be able to buy an
airplane ticket. I saw a lot of people thinking flying is possible. I
know what your point could be: I saw a lot of drunken people in the
way but they are not flying anywhere. I am not able to carry on this
discussion any more, I know my limits. I always had the good luck to
work only on GPL/LGPL software so I did not care so much. In future I
will keep my eyes wide-open and my mind more alert on the question.


>> This is *not* to say that this is the "Right" legal outcome - no
>> one can know the definitive answer on that matter until a court
>> settles it
>
>I.E. not only are you talking out your ass, but you _know_ you're talking out
>your ass.

 Unfortunately we should not underestimate the power of many people
who works in parallel on a same mission because it is the same power
behind the GPL community. GPL used the copyright leverage in order to
beat the proprietary software and it is not impossible that they are
using the collaboration of many people in order to exploit the GPL. I
know what your point could be: it is impossible they will have any
success. Concede me that I not so confident in their failure, at least
because I have no all your knowledge.

 Ciao,
-- 
/roberto



More information about the busybox mailing list