Amusing article about busybox

Bradley M. Kuhn bkuhn at ebb.org
Sat Feb 11 18:19:13 UTC 2012


Felipe Contreras wrote at 15:16 (EST) yesterday:
>>>> Enforcement only ensures that we would get the bare minimum (legal)
>>>> from the company, and IMO that doesn't help much.

OpenWRT and SamyGo are two excellent counterexamples.  While in both
cases, BusyBox GPL enforcement yielded only a bare minimum release, that
bare minimum was enough to spawn new upstream projects.

> On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 03:00:38PM +0200, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> And few people, if any, would be interested in updating busybox on
>> their TVs, or such.

With regard to TV's, in particular, SamyGo is a clear counter-example on
that point as well.

Felipe Contreras wrote at 15:16 (EST) yesterday:
>>>> Google's Android team opens their code (eventually), but most of
>>>> that code has not been merged to the Linux kernel, therefore, it's
>>>> basically useless to developers.

I think the Cyanogenmod community -- both users and developers -- would
disagree with you on that.  As a Cyangoenmod user, I certainly do.  And,
as Rich Felker pointed out elsewhere in the thread:
>> > What matters a lot more is utility to users who have received
>> > Android devices, who want to be able to use their hardware without
>> > the encumbrance of the vendor-shipped crapware. The fact that the
>> > source code is public and free makes a huge difference to them.
...
>>> If developers care about its utility to them, they can read and
>>> merge the code. What matters a lot more is utility to users who have
>>> received Android devices, who want to be able to use their hardware
>>> without the encumbrance of the vendor-shipped crapware. The fact
>>> that the source code is public and free makes a huge difference to
>>> them.

Felipe Contreras also wrote at 15:16 (EST) yesterday:
>>>> many people are angry about [Android kernel code not being
>>>> upstream], and have called Android a fork. How are you going to
>>>> solve this?  Suing?

AFAICT, the Google release of Android's Linux fork is in compliance with
GPL, which means the community has access to the improvements.  I think
it's a mistake to conflate issues raised by forking (which GPL permits)
with issues raised by complete failure to comply with GPLv2§3.

Rich Felker wrote at 08:31 (EST):
> That's why it's so important that Busybox act as a proxy to
> enforcement of other GPL infringement. The important thing to get is
> the kernel and other system components. Busybox is likely unmodified
> or barely-modified anyway.

While I agree with Rich's statement above, I want to reiterate that
getting "scripts to control compilation and installation of the
executable" for BusyBox is an essential issue under GPLv2 and those
scripts are likely very different from firmware to firmware.  At least,
I've seen them to be quite different in various source releases I've
helped liberate through GPL enforcement for BusyBox.

>> Besides, if you really care about users, why not wait until some user
>> requests GPL enforcement? I bet many consumer devices would not have a
>> single user that requests that.

> That's what Busybox does. It seems you're completely unaware of what
> you're talking about, because almost all Busybox enforcement efforts
> stem from users being upset to find Busybox on a device they bought
> and want to hack around with, and no sign of source code anywhere.

I can confirm this.  Indeed, IIRC, every BusyBox enforcement I've been
involved with has started with a report from a curious user who found
BusyBox in a device or firmware that (s)he bought/downloaded.

>> They already have a competitive advantage. Enforcement is only making
>> companies that otherwise be good citizens (Sony) walk away,
>> fragmenting the community, and decreasing the competitive advantage
>> of compliant companies.

> Sony is the antithesis of "good citizen" in every possible way.

Well, to be fair to Sony, I'm not aware of any Sony GPL violation.
<gpl at busybox.net> has gotten a few vague reports, but I've never seen a
confirmed violation by Sony, so I presume they're abiding by GPL
currently.  While this might not make them a "good citizen", I think the
fact of Sony's apparent GPL compliance means the statement quoted above
is an exaggeration.

Laurent Bercot wrote at 11:08 (EST) today:
>>>>> Toybox wasn't made by Sony. Toybox was made by Rob Landley.  Sony
>>>>>is merely *using* Toybox.

Indeed.  I encourage everyone to be fair to Tim Bird on this: Tim claims
that Sony *doesn't* support the ToyBox initiative, but that it's his
personal support that he's given to Rob and ToyBox.  I've pointed out to
Tim that it is confusing that he's giving that support using his
sony.com email address, which is what led me to believe it was a Sony
initiative.  But Tim has clarified this point publicly, so I am going to
take Tim at his word on that (but I'll continue to encourage Tim to
cease using his sony.com email address to endorse things that Sony
doesn't endorse).

FWIW, I'm trying to schedule a meeting with Tim Bird at Embedded Linux
Conference next week.  I still maintain that a lot of what Tim posted on
the LWN thread is based on second-hand confusions and misrepresentations
of Conservancy's and Erik Andersen's positions in BusyBox GPL
enforcement actions.  My hope is that I can convince Tim that there's no
reason to have such great fear of GPL (and, after all, Sony will still
be using Linux, which is also GPL'd).  I don't think any of the outcomes
Tim fears are likely to happen -- at least due to Conservancy
enforcement, anyway.  I hope I can convince Tim of this fact when I see
him.

As for Rob Landley, I have told Rob on IRC this: I support his right to
write any Free Software he likes under any license -- copyleft or
permissive.  More Free Software is always good for the world, regardless
of the motivations that led to its authorship.  I also think healthy
competition for BusyBox, with a very different approach to the same
problem set, is a good thing, no matter what reason it comes.

> On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn <bkuhn at ebb.org> wrote:
>> The question is whether or not Conservancy, as BusyBox's enforcement
>> agent, would *insist* that a company stop distributing *compliant*
>> products when other products are out of compliance.

Felipe Contreras wrote at 15:16 (EST) yesterday:
>>>> Yes, but s/would/could/. From what I've read, you make no
>>>> distinction on product lines. And that's worrying.

I'm curious to know what you've read that makes you believe that.  I
said pretty clearly in my previous emails that Conservancy's goal in
BusyBox enforcement is to avoid doing many things that copyright law
would allow us to do, in the interest of friendly discussions with the
violator.  I think what you might have read might have been FUD, or
perhaps a misconstruing of something I wrote.

>>>> We don't care about compliance, compliance is almost useless.

Who is the "we" you are speaking for there?

I care about compliance, because I care about users who got a product
without an source nor offer therefor.  I know Erik cares about that,
too.  I think others do as well....

>>>> What we need is for them to become members of the community, and that
>>>> can only happen within, by a change in culture, understanding how open
>>>> source works.

... Nevertheless, I fully agree with you on that.  A lot of the process
of enforcement is an education effort to help companies join our
community.  Some do, and some have.  There are many past violators who
are now participants in Free Software development.

>>>> GPL is not important; it's just a tool. What is important for
>>>> developers is to get contributions back.

That's one important issue.  Another important issue is that users get
the ability to take advantage of new versions of the software, or make
modified distributions for their devices using the source that the
developers licensed to them under GPL.

Felipe Contreras wrote 09:51 (EST) today:
>>>> But Linux people have not requested GPL enforcement.

First of all, for years, Linux developers have come up to me at
conferences and told me confidentially that they thank me and BusyBox
for Conservancy's enforcement work, but for political reasons they
couldn't get involved with enforcement.

That said, Denys and I have had some discussion about getting more
projects involved with Conservancy's enforcement, and I think that's
worth doing.  I'm working on that issue this month, and hopefully I will
have an announcement about it in March.
-- 
Bradley M. Kuhn, Executive Director, Software Freedom Conservancy


More information about the busybox mailing list