Felipe Contreras wrote:
On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 4:47 AM, Ralf Friedl <ralf.fri...@online.de>
wrote:
Felipe Contreras wrote:
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.
It depends on what kinds of enforcement; abusive
company-wide-without-regards-to-specific-units, that is also started
as a proxy without consent from the original copy-right holders; no, I
don't think companies would be too happy to use such code, much less
contribute to it.
Let's get some facts straight.
Sony wants to avoid the GPL busybox not because of busybox itself, but
because they fear that they can be forced to comply with the GPL on
Linux, and they want to avoid that. They know that they break the
license, and they want to replace busybox so that they can continue to
break the kernel license. There are different opinions about this
behavior. You want to defend Sony's god given right to violate the
kernel license, I think it's a shame that the kernel license isn't
enforced by the developers themselves, but the fact is that Sony intends
to continue to violate the kernel license and replacing busybox is just
a means to the end.
Companies that are happy to contribute are not affected by enforcement.
Companies that are not so happy but play by the rules anyway are also
not affected, although they might wonder why they should continue to
follow the rules if there is no incentive to do so. Affected are only
the companies that violate the license, and continue to violate the
license. I already asked why you think that these companies would change
their view if there is no enforcement, and instead of an answer, you
provided a diversion. So I conclude that we agree that non-enforcement
is not the way to get companies to contribute.
I already mentioned that it is not possible to enforce copyright without
consent from the copyright holders, and you repeat it here anyway, so it
seems that inconvenient facts don't influence your opinion.
In fact, the opposite is true.
Right... there is absolutely no company that avoids the GPL because of
this abusive enforcement. Wait a second, what about Sony? Sure, maybe
Sony is not a good community member _today_, but it might be at some
point, and it would certainly not be contributing to busybox.
I am pretty sure there's plenty of companies that they only lesson
they learned from being targets of GPL enforcement is to avoid GPL
code.
That remark was in the context of providing existing source code, as
required by the GPL, in case you didn't notice. More source code was
provided by enforcement then by waiting and doing nothing.
Again you imply that Sony might contribute something at some point, so I
ask you: why would Sony suddenly start to contribute to busybox or
toybox on a voluntary base, when they don't want to contribute to the
kernel despite their obligation to do so?
Well, maybe some companies learned that they should avoid the GPL,
others, even those that were the targets of enforcement probably learned
that it is a license they have to comply with (gasp!), just like all
their other licenses and contracts.
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.
Some do the minimum, not all.
I already explained that for *developers* the bare minimum is almost
worthless, what is needed is community involvement, and walking around
with a stick does not help a single bit.
You might consider the bare minimum to be be almost worthless, but
without enforcement the bare minimum is zero and therefor completely
worthless.
I consider a working source to be far from worthless, but I see that
such a view would impact your argument.
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.
Do not tell me what I expect from the licensees, that's up to me to
decide.
I expect contributions back. If you are a good member of society, you
most likely will at least publish your modifications, that's good, but
I strongly prefer if you contribute back. If you are a bad member of
society, expect bad publicity, as you are not doing what you are
supposed to do.
I didn't tell you what to expect from a license, so please leave your
straw men at home.
I said that there is in effect no difference between "public domain,
please please share your modification" and "GPL, but I won't do anything
if you violate it".
By your own definition, Sony is not a good member of society. And please
provide examples where the bad publicity has resulted in code
contributions.
I know of enough examples where vendors provide source for GPL programs
because they have to, and don't provide source for BSD programs because
they don't have to.
By the way, which code is it where it is up to you to decide which
license you want to use? You remember, you as in "we, the developers"?
And if you are
not prepared to sue as a last resort, all other attempts of
enforcement are
futile in most cases.
I don't care. No amount of enforcement is going to make them send
clean patches to the mailing list, so why should I care?
Of course it's up to you whether you care or not. But you are strongly
advocating that others shouldn't care.
As someone else has written, the code quality from most companies is
just bad. But you can't know that if you don't get to see the code. I'm
sure the reason why the Android changes are not in the kernel is not
that nobody has figured out how to run diff.
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.
Companies are not single entities, like people, but it seems that
concept just doesn't sink in with many people.
Another nice straw man.
Yes, companies typically consist of many people. Yet, most of the time
they can do what has to be done. It may not be as efficient as you would
like, but that is another point.
Suppose, Sony (or Nokia) had to license a patent where they have to pay
a certain amount for each device produced. At regular times they must
report "we produced X devices, at Y$/device this means Z$, here is your
check". Now suppose, instead of this report, they write "Companies are
not single entities, it is so difficult to count all these devices,
let's just ignore this license agreement". What do you think would happen?
So, somehow companies are able to write such reports and send the checks
at the right time. I'll also give you a hint why this is so: they
dedicated people to this task (whether full time or not). Yes, doing so
costs money. But it would cost them more to not comply with the license.
So to repeat, companies ignore the GPL because they can, and you seem to
imply that they should be free to do so.
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.
So you are saying that there's people out there that want to update
*only* busybox on their TV's? I find that hard to believe.
Another straw man.
Nobody said that they wanted to replace *only* busybox, although there
might be a benefit to replace only the original busybox with a busybox
with more applets.
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.
Not thanks to enforcement. There's no stick you can use to achieve that.
In some cases, the code came as a result of enforcement.
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.
It's _possible_ but nobody is going to do it. The only *efficient* way
to achieve this without loosing one's sanity is to actively invite
companies to become part of the community, and educate them about the
benefits, and only then, they might go through all the processes
needed to write clean patches, so one, as a maintainer of a project,
can just apply them, and only _then_ does everybody wins. Sticks don't
help that.
Do you have facts to support the claim that nobody ever used the code?
And how do you educate the companies? Remember, "companies are not
single entities".
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.
Sony != Sony lawyers. Being involved with Nokia lawyers I can tell you
that Nokia engineers didn't agree with many things, and it's oh so
frustrating. A lot of the issues can't even be mentioned publicly.
So when you say Sony should do this, I can't help but roll my eyes.
You can blame Sony all you want, but that just tells me you don't know
how big companies work.
I never said Sony should do this. I said they *could*. If Sony's lawyers
(or Nokia's) aren't aware of this, maybe I should tell them and charge a
consulting fee.
But it doesn't change the fact that they violate the kernel license. And
there is a reason why they use Linux, or they would switch to BSD or
something else.
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.
No, it's not, because Sony (or rather some people inside Sony) knows
_exactly_ how to retaliate, and Microsoft knows that.
Now this is funny, even more so then "Sony the good corporate citizen".
Actually, it was (is?) common that OEMs must buy a Windows license for
every machine, whether they use it or not. And you want to tell me that
people inside Sony knew _exactly_ how to retaliate, but for some reasons
didn't?
They can't do absolutely anything if the SFC pursues these courses of
actions.
They could simply comply with the GPL, and the SFC would have neither
motivation nor standing for any of these actions.
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.
Not for a big company.
Ok, I'll qualify that statement. It is easy to comply for a company of
any size, if it is seen as important enough. That means, as long as the
cost for complying is lower then the cost of not complying. Note that
this implies to any license or contract. Any the cost to comply with the
GPL is less then most other licenses. If their lawyers don't realize
that, there is also a cost associated with bad legal advice.
- 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.
Unless the developer is not aware of what you are doing, or doesn't
care enough to contact you. Since you have not *explicitly* requested
permission, that's a very valid (and quite likely) possibility.
What am *I* doing? Why should any developer contact me? Do you confuse
me with SFC? Remember, organizations are not people.
Did it occur to you that if SFC could enforce busybox compliance without
consent from the busybox develpers, they could also enforce Linux
compliance without consent from the Linux develpers?
Probably not thanks to enforcement.
Actually most likely due to enforcement.
Sure, now you rely on Stockholm syndrome. You stay with your sticks, I
prefer carrots.
Let's say you prefer to be on the receiving side of the carrot rather
then the stick. Actually you didn't even say what your carrot is, other
then hoping for the best.
Can you name a single instance where a company that was reluctant to
provide sources changed its opinion due to this carrot, and what the
carrot was in that case?
Nobody relies on Stockholm syndrome. It's just that the companies
realize that it is cheaper to use Linux, even if they have to comply
with the license, then to use any of the BSD alternatives or develop
something themselves. And Linux is cheaper, even if they are not allowed
to ignore the license completely.
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.
That's the main point *for you*. For open source people it's to get
contributions back. The license is *for developers*.
As tivoization exemplifies, you can't do squat for users with a
*software* license, and that's fine.
The main point of the license is clearly stated in the license. There is
nothing subjective about that. And tivoization just demonstrates that
nobody considered that possible when GPLv1 and GPLv2 were written. GPLv3
addresses this, and it's also a software license.
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.
What RMS intended and what the copyright holders intended can be
diametrically opposed. See Linus Torvalds.
If what the license clearly states and what the copyright holders
intended is opposed, then maybe the copyright holders picked the wrong
license.
I personally think that Linux would not be what it is today it had a BSD
license.
I hope I don't have to tell you that there's plenty of people that
don't like GPLv3 and prefer to stay with GPLv2 *precisely* for this
reason. How do you explain that?
Everybody is entitled to their opinion.
I thought Sony was pushing for toybox, so I supposed they would
contribute back. If they are not going to do that _today_, that's
fine, I'm sure they will eventually understand the benefits of open
source, not thanks to the SFC.
Many of your points reply on speculation.
This "eventually" can be a very long time, up to "infinity".
Actually enforcement has brought many contributions back.
What would you suggest instead,and in what time frame would that work?
Ralf
_______________________________________________
busybox mailing list
busybox@busybox.net
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
