Amusing article about busybox

Rich Felker dalias at aerifal.cx
Sat Feb 11 23:14:45 UTC 2012


On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 04:47:25PM +0200, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 3:31 PM, Rich Felker <dalias at aerifal.cx> wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 03:00:38PM +0200, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> >> > 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 their devices are not locked.
> >>
> >> And few people, if any, would be interested in updating busybox on
> >> their TVs, or such.
> >
> > 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.
> 
> But Linux people have not requested GPL enforcement. So you are most
> likely acting against the wishes of the copyright holders. Probably

In my book the wishes of the copyright holders are virtually
worthless. It's the rights of users that matter. GPL exists to protect
the rights of people who receive software, not the rights of people
who write it. If you write GPL software with the intention of not
enforcing the GPL and discouraging others from enforcing it, and then
use the fact that it's "GPL" to allow yourself to incorporate
thousands of contributions and code snippets adopted from other GPL
projects, you're barely one notch above infringers on the moral
scale..

> >> 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.
> 
> Then why are they making Toybox open? Is anybody suing them to do that? No.

Sony is not making Toybox, not making Toybox open. Toybox is Rob
Landley's project that existed long before Sony had any interest in
it, and it's still unclear how much interest they have in it. I heard
they're paying somebody (not Rob) to work on it, probably because it's
smarter to work with the upstream developer who knows the project
inside out than to fork your own version and develop it in a closed
environment.

> Toybox being open source is proof that parts of Sony are good
> citizens, and they would probably be contributing to Busybox if it
> wasn't because of the SFC.

No, Toybox being open source has nothing to do with Sony. It was open
source many years before Sony was involved.

Rich


More information about the busybox mailing list