Questions about the use of BusyBox in embedded products

Denys Vlasenko vda.linux at googlemail.com
Tue Oct 28 16:38:30 UTC 2008


Hi Christophe,

On Tuesday 28 October 2008 16:01, Christophe Niclaes wrote:
> Develtech is an engineering company and we are facing a new design
> for one of our customers where we think to intefrate BusyBox software.
> We get some strong questions from the customer about legal issues
> of GPL license of BusyBox and I would like to get some answers about that.
> As for a lot of embedded designs, the product will be based
> on a software package that include:
> 
> - A linux kernel
> - BusyBox package
> - some proprietary executables and scripts that we are developing
>   for the customer
> 
> The integration between the executables (that the customer
> don't want to release in source code) and the GPL packages are:
> 
> - The executables and scripts make calls to kernel functions
> through standard kernel API (which is authorized by the kernel's license) 
> - The executables and scripts are linked with some libraries
> (such as uclibc) that are LGPL, so no problems 
> - The executables and scripts are calling some functions
> provided by BusyBox executables through command line 
> 
> Could you tell me if this latest way to integrate BusyBox with our proprietary
> executables in the product is compatible with the GPL license of BusyBox
> if we provide necessary documentation, disclaimers and source code
> of BusyBox software without publishing any source code of our executables?

If you just compile unmodified busybox source,
store resulting executable in an embedded device
and use it normally (i.e. by running it from scripts
and/or from command line), you only need to make
busybox source available (say, put it on the company's website).

If you patch busybox source before building the binary,
you should make patches available too (as separate patch files,
or in a form of full modified source).

> My question is maybe strange for you, but I'm afraid
> of the following statement found in the GPL FAQ where
> even GPL's guys can't give a legally sure answer
> to this issue (see the sentence "... ultimately
> judges will decide").

It basically means that if there will be a legal dispute
whether someone adheres to GPL or violates it,
judge will need to decide on it.

> ----------------------------------------------------
> "What is the difference between an "aggregate" and other kinds of "modified versions"? 
> 
> An "aggregate" consists of a number of separate programs,
> distributed together on the same CD-ROM or other media.
> The GPL permits you to create and distribute an aggregate,
> even when the licenses of the other software are non-free
> or GPL-incompatible. The only condition is that you cannot
> release the aggregate under a license that prohibits users
> from exercising rights that each program's individual
> license would grant them.       
> Where's the line between two separate programs, and one program
> with two parts? This is a legal question, which ultimately
> judges will decide. We believe that a proper criterion
> depends both on the mechanism of communication (exec,
> pipes, rpc, function calls within a shared address space,
> etc.) and the semantics of the communication (what kinds
> of information are interchanged).      
> If the modules are included in the same executable file,
> they are definitely combined in one program. If modules
> are designed to run linked together in a shared address space,
> that almost surely means combining them into one program.    
> By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments
> are communication mechanisms normally used between
> two separate programs. So when they are used for communication,
> the modules normally are separate programs.
> But if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough,
> exchanging complex internal data structures, that too
> could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined
> into a larger program."       
> ----------------------------------------------------

Do you have a question regarding above?

> Best Regards,
> 
> Christophe Niclaes
> 
> ---------------------------
> Christophe Niclaes
> Operation Manager
> cn at develtech.com <mailto:cn at develtech.com> 
> ---------------------------
> DEVELTECH SPRL
> Centre d'Affaires Dony
> 53 Rue de Chênée
> 4031 Angleur
> Belgium
> Tel : +32.4.250.54.64.
> Fax : +32.4.367.00.17.
> http://www.develtech.com <http://www.develtech.com/>

--
vda



More information about the busybox mailing list