BusyBox Goes 1.0.0

prostoalex writes "BusyBox, a stripped-down minimalistic toolkit for embedded Linux, is now shipping 1.0.0. ChangeLog is available on the project Web site."

Comments

The people that make this...

[cs02rm0]

...are liars I tell you!

They robbed us of a real screenshot!

And now we are waiting for uclibc ver 1.0

[geirt]

uclibc is a tiny libc which fits BusyBox very well. A complete linux system (without kernel) can be built using less than 500kbyte with busybox and uclibc.

Obligatory

[geeveees]

...link to the Hall Of Shame: http://www.busybox.net/shame.html

It's a list of all the companies that use(d) BusyBox in some way without releasing the source code.

Re:Obligatory

[Brandybuck]

The GPL does not require disclosure of source code for *use* of the software. It also does not require one to *release* the source code, only provide it to customers. The Busybox hall of shame page seems to have gross misunderstanding of the GPL.

Companies that distribute busybox as a component of an embedded system do need to make the source code available to its customers. But this is a different thing than "use". The Busybox page employs the word "use", which is in error. In addition, "releasing" the source code is not necessary, you only have to available. According to some readings of the GPL, if you don't modify the sources, you could even get away with merely providing a link to the Busybox ftp site!

busybox is not ..

[josepha48]

... just for Linux anymore.. it is also available for FreeBSD and NetBSD, in their packages / ports sections.. anyone who wants to make a small basic rescue floppy / bootable cd could probably use this..

distro

[vijaya_chandra]

GeexBox is one cool tiny linux distro for creating bootable media discs using BusyBox

Let the box be busy

Re:Lean Kernel

[FLAGGR]

Harder, because someone who wanted to make a minimal kernel would probably be bound to some pretty specific hardware, which might depend on alot of kernel features. I've stripped my own kernel once, straight from source. v2.2 I think... It was difficult, but eventually worked. I've got a floppy disk that runs all the mini stuff, plus X11/Fluxbox. Very neat, all on one floppy (mind you X11 is painfully thinned down of course, so its basically only usable to use as a GUI installer for an app or something)

The finer points of gross misunderstanding

[Kaseijin]

The GPL does not require disclosure of source code for *use* of the software. It also does not require one to *release* the source code, only provide it to customers.

In context, "use" implies distribution; it's imprecise, but hardly evidence of a "gross misunderstanding". I have no idea what you infer from "release" that you don't from "provide" or "make... available". Also, your own reading is in error. The GPL says nothing about "customers"; the source must "accompany" the binaries (whether provided to customers, partners, or anyone else) or be offered to "any third party".

According to some readings of the GPL, if you don't modify the sources, you could even get away with merely providing a link to the Busybox ftp site!

Section 3c, which allows the recipient of a binary and an offer simply to pass on both, applies only to noncommercial distribution. Most if not all the products in the hall of shame are commercial, and the one possible exception I saw does not include information about an offer of source Also, I cannot see how I could satisfy section 3c by linking to the BusyBox FTP site. The web site contains source, not an offer, and the FTP site appears not to be open to the public. A link by itself doesn't meet the requirements of an offer in section 3b, and I would need a 3b offer to make a 3c reference.

Re:The finer points of gross misunderstanding

[Brandybuck]

The GPL community needs to get it through its thick skull that words have meanings. When the Busybox site has several prominent admonitions not to *use* the software, then it should surprise no one that people continue to think that the GPL restricts usage of the software.