Amusing article about busybox

[Ralf Friedl]

Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 8:19 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn <bkuhn at ebb.org> wrote:
>   
>> 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.
>>     
> True, there are exceptions.
>   
There are more exceptions.
You seem to imply that without enforcement of the GPL, there would 
magically appear more companies who want to contribute to open source, 
but you provide no argument why that would happen. In fact, the opposite 
is true. The companies that comply with the GPL do that anyway. Most of 
that other companies do the bare minimum to comply with the GPL. They 
also do the bare minimum to comply with BSD code, which means they do 
nothing, although it would be trivially easy for them to share their 
modifications.

If you say the the code is licensed under the GPL, but you promise to 
never enforce the license, you might as well call it public domain. And 
if you are not prepared to sue as a last resort, all other attempts of 
enforcement are futile in most cases. Companies don't ignore the GPL 
because it is so hard to understand, they deal with much more 
complicated contracts. They ignore the GPL because they can, and you 
seem to imply that they should be free to do so.

>>> 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.
>>     
> SamyGo includes much more than just busybox.
>   
You seem to want to dismiss the fact your claim was wrong that users 
aren't interested in the source for busybox and other programs on their 
devices.

>> 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:
>>     
> Cyanogenmod is not Linux. I am talking about the original
> _developers_, the ones that wrote Linux, since that's what Android
> uses, and has not contributed back.
>   
The sources are available, that does not mean that anybody is forced to 
use these modification.
As you specifically mention the Linux kernel, a lot of companies have 
contributed code that is in the main kernel, so there has been benefit 
for the original developers. Other code is considered not good enough 
for inclusion in the main kernel, but the code it there, and it is 
possible to use and improve this code.

>> 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.
>>     
> It doesn't matter what outcomes Tim fears, it only matters what Sony
> lawyers fear, and "the SFC said they wouldn't do it" is not any legal
> assurance. Somebody else might.
>   
Sony's fears seem very important for you.
Maybe it hasn't occurred to you or to Sony's lawyers, but from a legal 
point of view they could get exactly the same result if they say "Here 
on this server is the source for busybox x.y.z, it includes the 
configuration we used to build the binary". (Of course, they should not 
just say that, but also do it.) That shouldn't be too complicated, they 
would be in full compliance, and it would be much easier than to replace 
busybox and test a replacement.

>> 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.
>>     
>
> You and I have already a huge difference in opinion in what is
> desirable and fair regarding how to advance the open source movement.
> I don't even want to imagine what Sony lawyers are thinking.
>
> SFC _can_ shutdown unrelated product lines that are compliant, and SFC
> _can_ request compliance for things other than busybox. Lawyers are
> probably not interested in your "goals", but what can be done.
>   
Microsoft could send an update that breaks an important application, 
they reserved the right to do that in the EULA, and it has happened in 
the past. They could come and audit Sony's use of OEM licenses, or force 
them to buy a license even for machines that don't use Windows. All of 
this is more likely to happen.
And as I mentioned, complying with the GPL is really easy, and that 
removes even the last shadow of any risk of becoming the target of GPL 
enforcement.

>>>>>> We don't care about compliance, compliance is almost useless.
>>>>>>             
>> Who is the "we" you are speaking for there?
>>     
> We, the open source community, weather many of us realize it, or not.
>   
Please speak just for yourself and don't pretend to speak for anybody else.
By the way, a grep for your name in the busybox source finds nothing.

>> 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....
>>     
> The license is picked by the *developer*, and while it might be
> desirable to give something to users (I disagree this is the right
> way), the fact of the matter is that the owner of the code is the
> *developer*. And if you go against the wishes of the *developer*
> (which you seem to be doing), that's wrong, even if it's in the name
> of users.
>   
Two hints on this:
- If the developer picked the GPL, he probably wanted it respected. If 
not, he should have been honest and called it public domain.
- SFC is not the developer, they can't do anything themselves. They just 
act on behalf of the developer, so they can't go against the wishes of 
the developer, which you imply not just as a possibility but as a fact.

>>>>>> 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.
>>     
> Probably not tanks to enforcement.
>   
Actually mist likely due to enforcement.

>>>>>> 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.
>>     
> If that was the case, developers would pick GPLv3. If they stay with
> GPLv2, they probably are only interested in getting the modifications
> back.
>   
The main point of the GPL since v1 to give the uses of the software the 
rights and the possibility to modify the software and to use this 
modified software. From GPLv1: "The license agreements of most software 
companies try to keep *users* at the mercy of those companies.  By 
contrast, our ...".
It seems (once more) you don't know what you are talking about. The 
start of the GPL was that RMS was, as a user of a printer driver, unable 
to adapt it because he didn't get the source.
The GPLv3 is mainly a clarification because when GPLv2 was written, they 
didn't foresee that it would be possible for a user to have the source 
and not be able to use it on the intended device.

After all that you wrote, your concern for the fears of Sony's lawyers, 
after you call Sony "good citizens", I just wonder, do you happen to 
work for Sony?
Ralf