as well.
I attest that I am the sole copyright holder on the attached patch, and
I license it under GPLv2-or-later, but I do understand that BusyBox as a
whole is currently GPLv2-only.
>From f577ff063bcfb3f19a2475733e5c0f98764def62 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Bradley M. Kuhn
Date: Sat, 07 A
Denys Vlasenko wrote at 20:54 (EDT) on Saturday:
> Review:
Thank you very much for your detailed review. It was very helpful.
It's been 12 years since I did C programming regularly, so I definitely
needed a refresher, and your review helped quite a bit!
--
-- bkuhn
__
erm-support versions.
BTW, both Erik and I have known Tim Bird for some time. I can't speak
for Erik, but I am willing to spend some time reaching out to Tim to
coordinate this on behalf BusyBox/uClibc if there's interest from the
BusyBox and uClibc community.
recommendation to the projects' developers in this regard. Thanks to
all of you for your time in considering my recommendation, and I do
apologize if this discussion turned out to actually be a pointless rat
hole.
--
Bradley M. Kuhn
President, Software Freedom Conservancy (BusyBox's organizational home)
___
busybox mailing list
busybox@busybox.net
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
if this discussion turned out to actually be a
>> pointless rat hole.
> I don't think it is useless. For me it was useful - I heard a few
> stories from the trenches.
Great!
--
Bradley M. Kuhn
President, Software Freedom Conservancy (BusyBox's organizational home)
ts, how they work, and what tweaks BusyBox developers
want to see in Conservancy's enforcement efforts. OTOH, I hope we won't
led any FUD about enforcement be the sole reason we make changes to our
strategy. While I mostly lurk on this mailing list, I'll follow this
particular t
t, I also think it's a contradiction to say: "I prefer a
copylefted license but don't want it to be enforced." I don't think anyone
on this thread has said that, but it has been said in some of the public
debates in other fora in the last 24 hours.
--
Bradley M. Kuhn, Executive Director, Software Freedom Conservancy
___
busybox mailing list
busybox@busybox.net
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
m everyone in the
community.
--
Bradley M. Kuhn, Executive Director, Software Freedom Conservancy
___
busybox mailing list
busybox@busybox.net
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
tories he's heard second- or third-hand.
I'll add that Tim has never contacted me and asked to talk with me about
Conservancy's enforcement. I've reached out to him in the past, and
he's ignored my emails. I think it's pretty unfair for someone to
criticize witho
iance to
matter to them. Otherwise, many companies merely ignore the GPL.
(Others, I should note, like Red Hat, HP, Google, etc. do a good job
without any enforcement actions against them, because they have decided
it's the right thing to do and just c
te again that very very few enforcement actions involved litigation.
Of hundreds of enforcement actions, only about 17 were lawsuits. Most
enforcement is a more-or-less friendly conversation and assistance given
to help the company into compliance with the GPL
ll enforcement actions don't involve litigation. They are
handled primarily by technical staff and myself, not lawyers.
--
Bradley M. Kuhn, Executive Director, Software Freedom Conservancy
___
busybox mailing list
busybox@busybox.net
http://lists.
iling
list, which I understand fully if you don't want to be dragged into. Also
the list requires one to be a subscriber to post, so I completely
understand if you don't want to go to the trouble of subscribing.
>On Feb 8, 2012 7:58 PM, "Bradley M. Kuhn" wrote:
>> Techn
is interested in enforcing the license
Anyway, I continue to maintain that the key problem here is that BusyBox
has been alone in doing enforcement, basically worldwide, for at least a
few years. I think getting more projects involved will address a lot of
concerns, and I'm working to coordinate
pe 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 authorshi
yBox copyright holders would like to be involved in
the effort and haven't been previously, feel free to contact
to get involved.
--
Bradley M. Kuhn, Executive Director, Software Freedom Conservancy
___
busybox mailing list
busybox@busybox.net
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
>> 630c630
>> < "Copyright (C) 1998-2012 Erik Andersen, Rob
>> Landley, Denys Vlasenko\n"
>> ---
>>> "Copyright (C) 1998-2011 Erik Andersen, Rob
>> Landley, Denys Vlasenko\n"
>> Took a little searching to find which file it was in. I'm assuming
>> it
rik Andersen, Rob
>> >> Landley, Denys Vlasenko\n"
>> >> Took a little searching to find which file it was in. I'm assuming
>> >> it should be 2012, but there might be a reason it is changed, or
>> >> might just be it is to minor of a
the binary.
Meanwhile, I don't think a "configurable longer" copyright notice does
us any good, so I didn't include that in my patch.
The patch is attached. You can also pull it from:
git pull git://gitorious.org/busybox/busybox.git bkuhn/new-copyright-notice
>From a
Alain Mouette wrote at 17:40 (EDT) on Thursday:
> from FSF:
> http://producingoss.com/pt-br/copyright-assignment.html
> If no single entity has the right to do it, all the contributors might
> have to cooperate, but some might not have time or even be reachable when
> the issue arises.
AFAIK, tha
Felipe Contreras wrote at 11:31 (EDT) on Monday:
> if you are a big company an a unit used my code by mistake I'm not
> going to sue you and screw the rest of your units.
I don't think anyone, including those of us in the BusyBox community who
enforce the GPL, want to "screw" companies or any of t
ows our willingness to change our procedures
based on community feedback.
--
Bradley M. Kuhn, Executive Director, Software Freedom Conservancy
___
busybox mailing list
busybox@busybox.net
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
you know that there is a funds misappropriation?
Probably you do, but I suspect you'd just get a refund rather quickly.
If you donated $5,000, then I think the situation might be different
and it might be a complicated legal battle. :)
By an
Rob Landley wrote at 23:47 (EDT) on Friday:
> When you say "used to agree and now disagrees" you're implying that my
> position changed. It didn't. The lawsuits demonstrated their complete
> inability to serve their original purpose.
The original purpose was to get compliance with the GPL. IIRC,
en Conservancy would of course stop.
Meanwhile, I think it's really important that we don't bifurcate the
community over this issue. Permissive licenses have their place, and
folks who want to write code and license it that way should. It's still
Free Software. And, while I'
Rich Felker wrote at 13:14 (EDT) on Monday:
> My view is that if an author don't want copyleft to be enforced, they
> should choose a permissive license.
I agree that would be preferable (and since most permissive licenses are
compatible with GPL, one could submit, say, patches to BusyBox that we
ho "LicenseInfoInFile: NOASSERTION" >> "${DEST_FILE}"
+if [ -n "${copyright}" ]; then
+echo "FileCopyrightText: ${copyright}" >> "${DEST_FILE}"
+else
+echo "FileCopyrightText: NONE" >> "${DEST_FILE}"
+fi
+
I am pretty convinced this thread isn't useful anymore. We all know
you're against GPL enforcement, Felipe.
Felipe Contreras wrote at 10:37 (EDT) on Monday:
> I might be complying with it to the letter, but somebody in another
> team might not be, and I might suffer.
To my knowledge, at least in
Felipe Contreras wrote at 11:55 (CEST) on Thursday:
> I'm only interested in Linux enforcement.
The enforcement I mentioned by Red Hat was indeed Linux enforcement.
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
>> I remind you that Conservancy has never caus
Felipe Contreras wrote at 12:11 (CEST) on Thursday:
> I have never fought for my software rights, and I still have those
> rights. I have never fought for my freedom of speech rights, and yet I
> still have them. As long as the law is not modified, the rights will
> remain there.
> You can disagre
Felipe Contreras wrote at 07:54 (EDT) on Sunday:
> Maybe you need to meet more corporate lawyers, specially of big
> companies.
I interact with many of them on a weekly basis. I've taught them CLE
classes for years. I suspect that you may be skewed in your view of
what they believe because of w
Felipe Contreras wrote at 08:11 (EDT) on Sunday:
> My freedom of claiming GPL compliance has never been threatened,
> there's no need for me to fight, the freedom will not be taken away if
> I don't choose to exercise it.
I understand completely that you've never encountered a GPL violation in
you
Felipe Contreras wrote at 00:52 (EDT):
> I'm talking about rights. As a user, I don't have any rights, only
> privileges granted by the developer.
This is where I disagree, in principle. While you're technically
correct that the "rights" of copyright law stay with the copyright
holder, the GPL is
Felipe Contreras wrote at 06:26 (PDT) on Wednesday:
> It doesn't matter how the GPL was designed, the GPL doesn't have
> precedence over the law, and the law doesn't allow a software license
> to change the nature of copyright law.
The GPL *doesn't* change the nature of copyright law. It uses cop
Felipe Contreras wrote:
> It's perfectly fine for developers to enforce the license of *their*
> code, that is enforced by copyright law, I *never* said otherwise. But
> developers shouldn't weigh on the code of other developers in the
> project, or even other projects.
If you agree that copyrigh
Felipe Contreras wrote at 23:28 (PDT) on Thursday:
> because you think it's good that companies get punished for not
> complying with the GPL license of any code
Please don't attribute to me thoughts/opinions that I haven't stated.
IIRC, what's quoted above is not the first time you've done this.
Discussion of successful GPL court cases are probably off-topic for
BusyBox's mailing list, but if you're looking for some more examples,
Philippe Laurent's talk, "Open Licences before European Courts", is a
useful one. It's available in English, and French:
http://faif.us/cast/2012/jun/19/
have questions about this litigation or GPL
enforcement in general, you should feel free to contact me directly. I
suggest that we don't start a public thread about the litigation
specifically, as it's always better to not discuss details of pending
litigation publicly.
Sincerely,
Bradl
38 matches
Mail list logo
