Amusing article about busybox

Rich Felker dalias at aerifal.cx
Wed Feb 1 17:06:03 UTC 2012


On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 02:09:15PM +0200, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Laurent Bercot <ska-dietlibc at skarnet.org> wrote:
> >> Some of the arguments from the "other side" found in that
> >> thread make sense. We are possibly a bit too aggressive
> >> when we try to force people to comply with GPL
> >> on other projects too, not only on bbox.
> >
> >  Good quality alternatives are a good thing. If Rob starts his
> > Toybox project again, more power to him. If users - whether they
> > are individuals or companies - can choose between two similar
> > implementations of the same stuff, everyone benefits.
> >
> >  The unfortunate reality is that most companies *really don't want*
> > to release their source code. They will either refuse to have
> > anything to do with copylefted software, or infringe the copyleft
> > more or less blatantly. The "return something to the community"
> > idea just does not work with them.
> 
> Companies want to do what companies want to do. If a license really
> tries to make them do something they don't want to, then they won't
> use the software. Period.
> 
> I think that's a mistake many 'free software' advocates make is that a
> license would somehow make companies be good community members. That's
> not the case.
> 
> If Sony doesn't want to contribute, that's probably a mistake, but
> they are free to make that mistake, and they would do it regardless of
> what Matthew Garrett says.

If they don't want to contribute, then they should be subject to a
serious competitive disadvantage by being unable to use the best
software out there and/or having to spend their resources making
in-house replacements. That's the way it's always worked.

Rich


More information about the busybox mailing list