Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Busybox Developer Responds To Andersen-SFLC Lawsuits

Posted by kdawson on from the setting-the-record-straight dept.

Bruce Perens writes "I'm the creator of the Busybox program. I have released a statement on the past and current Busybox lawsuits, which do not represent my interest."

6 of 316 comments (clear)

  1. Proposition by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The version 0.60.3 of Busybox upon which Mr. Andersen claims copyright registration in the lawsuits is to a great extent my own work and that of other developers. I am not party to the registration. It is not at all clear that Mr. Andersen holds a majority interest in that work.

    Perhaps it is high time you looked into the allegations that "every line of code you wrote for Busybox is gone?" It is still GPLed, afterall. Wouldn't your old code diffed against the new code reveal the truth in that statement and set things straight in whose interest the SFLC should be representing?

    If you can point me to a version/tag/branch/code repository where you assert your dominance in authorship, I would be more than happy to spend an hour when I get home tonight generating some stats against the current code (assuming that code hasn't been drastically moved around/repackaged/renamed). Even so, it would fairly trivial to script an expensive file-by-file comparison and return a set of the most likely matches based on percentage similarities to establish what work of yours may remain. Might even be a better tool out there than what I know of.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Proposition by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes. Surely the producer of an embedded product has no excuse to fail to deliver the source code. And if it's Best Buy with a house product, it's their obligation.

      --
      Bruce Perens.
    2. Re:Proposition by cyphercell · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm sorry but this reads like bias and little else. I think what Bruce is getting at is that these lawsuits generate FUD amongst his clients. It's not about destroying the FSF or whatever you're going on about, it's about protecting the marketability of software Mr. Perens authored and now supports.

      You know from the outside it may very well look like MS says people get sued for using FOSS, advocates scream to no end about FUD, and then the FOSS developers come out and start suing people.

      --
      Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
  2. Worst summary ever. by WiiVault · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Sorry "editors" but many of us have no clue what this article is about based on the two sentence summary about a guy and company I have never heard of. Perhaps a little more explanation would help?

  3. What's your point Bruce? by gr8_phk · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It seems from your post that:
    1) You seem upset that SFLC isn't representing *your* interests in the matter, but they are representing others.
    2) You are unhappy that someone registered a copyright without including you on it.
    3) You seem to imply that you'd be willing to waive your rights in the matter, or give your blessing to distribution without source.

    1 is not relevant
    2 would suggest you should go after the people who registered it - unless my interpretation of 3 is correct.
    3 If true, why would you say that?

    The only point I can see to your rant is to draw attention to yourself and your consulting business trying to raise doubts about a bunch of things.
    What exactly is your point here?

    1. Re:What's your point Bruce? by rtfa-troll · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Dear Bruce; some comments
      • the SFLC should be guarded since you were potentialy a party in their lawsuits where they already agreed to represent another party
      • now that you are in active conflict with their clients, it would probably be illegal for them to represent you (which is why they should be guarded before)
      • you should get your own, separate, lawyer
      • even having majority interest may not be sufficient to overcome the minority interests; anyone with any interest can claim a GPL violation on the combined work
      • the time for publicity is normally after you have filed a court case and even then it should be limited to what your lawer agrees to

      Given this I'm not sure I see your point with what you are doing now. Most of your complaints about the SFLC are unfair since they cannot represent two opposed clients at a time. I think they should have a duty of fair access, and representing those they can, however that doesn't extend to breaking the law or allowing conflicts of interest and in this case, Mr Andersen and Landley got there first. Sorry, bad luck.

      Having said that, if it's true that your copyright on BusyBox has been deleted incorrectly, then using the SFLC way on the other Busy Box developers is a perfect example of what you should do to the Busybox developers who mistreated you; but you must use a proper lawyer. Start with a clear legal letter to the busybox developers pointing out which version had your copyright deleted and shouldn't have and asking them to come into compliance with the GPL (which has a requirement for correct labelling of authorship). Please remain as reasonable as we have seen you being before and you will get your way. We'll back you up and I hereby pledge 20 Euro towards your legal fees if you produce a reasonable lawsuit and explanation of it and how it got to this stage of breakdown. I'll give more if I'm convinced this is a worthwhile use of money.

      INAL and all that...

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();