Busybox Developer Responds To Andersen-SFLC Lawsuits

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."

Comments

Proposition

[eldavojohn]

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.

Re:Proposition

[Bruce Perens]

I my contribution is not gone from the rather old version of Busybox which was subject to the copyright registration and is mentioned in the lawsuit. If necessary, yes, a diff can be produced. I also have a compilation copyright of various sorts, which can't be represented with a diff. And there is also the matter of non-literal copying, which probably exists despite Landley's claim, and can't be represented with a diff.

Re:Proposition

[Bruce Perens]

I didn't mention a tag, sorry. This would probably be a version pulled from an old Debian release. There were subsequent developers to me, for example Dave Cinege and the Linux Router Project, before the source-code control system currently in use for Busybox was established.

Re:Proposition

[LWATCDR]

I wonder if you could answer a question for me?
If the source for the GPL software is unmodified and freely available from other sources why should the vendor have to duplicate it's availability?
No it doesn't cost an arm and a leg to throw up a tarball of busybox to be nice and legal but what benefit does it have to the community?
Including the GPL it's self I see as vital but the making yet another copy of the source available seems iffy at best.
Just wondering about your thoughts on this. I have contributed some FOSS code to a few projects and I feel that feel that feeding code improvments back into the project is much more important than making another copy of already available source available.

Re:Proposition

[Surt]

Without meaning to answer for the great and powerful Bruce, how does the end user know where to go for the source code? Per the GPL, they can ALWAYS go to the distributor.

Re:Proposition

[Bruce Perens]

The vendor has to comply with all of the license terms. Including providing the license statement, etc. We don't want to give them another decision to make by making them check if they've made any changes, and then do so again every time they distribute a new version, we just want them to provide the source as that ends up being easiest.

If they have made no modification, we will be able to see that from the source that they provide. But they often make modifications, if only to fix a bug, to port the software, or to add a feature. If they have any sense they don't link their big proprietary feature into the Busybox executable. But even if they did, they could remove it as part of coming into compliance.

Re:Proposition

[blincoln]

If the source for the GPL software is unmodified and freely available from other sources why should the vendor have to duplicate it's availability?

I'm going to guess it's because it's a lot easier to require that each vendor distribute the code than to come up with an effect-but-byzantine, legally-sound method of requiring the vendor to determine if the code is "freely available from other sources" before requiring them to make it available themselves or not, as well as regularly checking to see if the same situation is true in a year, five years, a decade, etc.

Re:Proposition

[Bruce Perens]

Joe the burger-flipper buys a car with Linux embedded in the dashboard computer. He then sells it to Jim. Jim asks Joe for source-code. Joe doesn't know what source-code is.

So, there are some cases where it doesn't make sense to ask the "distributor". The manufacturer would know what to do, and the manufacturer has created the derivative work involved. In general, the manufacturer would take care of this obligation for Joe.

Re:Proposition

[Anonymous Coward]

This should be settled in a civilized manner. I suggest the lowest slashdot id wins.

Re:Proposition

[dedazo]

Bruce, what is your intention here? I'm sorry if I couldn't figure it out from your article. Are you trying to get the SLFC to drop the suit, include you on it, recognize your copyright over the code, or what?

Re:Proposition

[ysth]

I don't see Mr. Perens anywhere saying anything about wanting a different license. Care to provide a link or at least a quote?

Re:Proposition

[gr8_phk]

If the source for the GPL software is unmodified and freely available from other sources why should the vendor have to duplicate it's availability?

Because the license says so.

Re:Proposition

[Surt]

Yes, clearly I glossed over the legal technicalities. We're surely looking for something like the original modifier or whatever term the GPL actually uses to describe that person. My only real point was that making it non optional makes it easy for the end consumer who wants the source code to know where to go.

Re:Proposition

[Bruce Perens]

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.

Re:Proposition

[Dewin]

If the source for the GPL software is unmodified and freely available from other sources why should the vendor have to duplicate it's availability?

I'm going to guess it's because it's a lot easier to require that each vendor distribute the code than to come up with an effect-but-byzantine, legally-sound method of requiring the vendor to determine if the code is "freely available from other sources" before requiring them to make it available themselves or not, as well as regularly checking to see if the same situation is true in a year, five years, a decade, etc.

I believe the latter half of this is exactly the reason that provision is required. If you rely on other sources then locating the source code stops being feasible if those other sources cease to exist. By distributing the source yourself, you guarantee that it remains available for at least as long as you are distributing the products that use it.

Re:Proposition

[cyphercell]

I think he wants to work as a consultant without being inundated by calls from his clients. Possibly, one of his clients is a defendant in the case?

Re:Proposition

[LWATCDR]

Well of course if some chowder head links play_DRM_video.o into busybox they should get slapped.
And yes you must play by the rules so that is a given. I just hate the idea 500 copies of the source for some out of date version of some code I wrote five years ago floating around the web. Of course if I stop working on it then having lots of copies of it floating around can be a good thing. I guess I can see the pluses and minuses. I can also see how some developer could make an honest mistake and not post there copy. If I buy a SBC with Linux on it and use it for my product I might think that they tar ball the vendor of the SBC has his site covers me. I would be wrong but it would be an honest mistake. Going back and making sure that every piece of code that is on an SBC is available while not a nightmare could be a bit of a task.
You can also get bad advice when you start doing that kind of development. When I was talking to my vendor about freeing up some space on the flash image he suggested that I static link my code! This code was not something I wanted to release as GPL. When I asked the vendor actually said, "who will ever know". I didn't take that option.
As with most things in life it is easy to make an honest mistake or get bad advice when dealing with GPL code.
On another project we thought that must including the DIFF of our patch and saying what GPL code we where using was good enough. We latter decided to just put the tarball on the CD along with the GPL just to be safe.

Re:Proposition

[harlows_monkeys]

I just bought a Samsung TV, and the back of the manual includes a copy of GPLv2, LGPLv2.1, Mozilla PL 1.1, the OpenSSL License, the FreeType license, and the ZLib license.

It also says the GPL code included in the product is the Linux kernel, Busybox, Binutils, U-boot, Wireless_tools, and pump. It lists glibc, ffmpeg, libgphoto2, libpfp, libusb, smpeg, alsa, directfb, and uClibc as being the LGPL code.

It gives an email address to write to ask for the code.

It sure looks like they are trying to comply.

Re:Proposition

[cyphercell]

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.

Re:Proposition

[LWATCDR]

Just to play the devil's advocate.
Joe buys a cool FOSS based digital dash for FLOSS dashboards inc and puts it in his car. He then sells the car five years latter. Does he have to include the source?

GM buys a lot of cool FOSS based digital dashboards and puts them in a lot of cars....

In this case the only difference is in the numbers.

If I buy a single board computer with Linux does the SBC manufactures site with links to Linux source cover me?

If I put together a Home networking package at the local computer store I run that included a Linux based router do I have to provide the source code?

These are some gray areas. I mean nobody would bust a guy that sells a linksys router but doesn't include the source but what about a guy that sells PCs with Ubuntu preinstalled?

When do you become the "distributor".
Me personally with probably always just include the source but one does wonder.

Re:Proposition

[jps25]

If the source for the GPL software is unmodified and freely available from other sources why should the vendor have to duplicate it's availability?

You might as well ask why someone else should provide the source (and pay for its availability) if you distribute something.
What if the original source provider doesn't exist anymore?
It's really simple, if you use GPLed code, you provide the source.
It doesn't even cost you anything since you can charge for it.

Re:Proposition

[LWATCDR]

That is a given sort of. There are gray areas.

Does BestBuy have to make the source available for the Linksys router they sell available as well as Linksys?

If I make a routers using a gumstix and sell it do I have to duplicate the source repository of that gumstix already makes available?

What if I OEM the Linksys router and put a different name on it and resell it?

What if I sell my Linksys router on eBay?

Because the license says so it a second grade answer. I was looking more for what benefit making yet another copy of unmodified code available.

Re:Proposition

[Anonymous Coward]

Joe is not the distributor. Private party sales have nothing to do with copyright.

Re:Proposition

[dch24]

Joe can include the source in his single car sale by including the CD he got when he bought it - FLOSS dashboards inc included the source on the CD, right?

Right, I know that a lot of GPL software on CDs doesn't include the source on the CD. However, let's go one step further. I know Joe probably lost the CD - it happens often enough. Now what do we do?

Well, if Joe gets sued, he can contact FLOSS dashboards inc and get the source from them, and thus fulfill his legal obligation.

GM sells a bunch of FLOSS dashboards. They can wait until they get sued, then try to find FLOSS dashboards. But considering the risk, they'll probably just distribute the source up front, because they're smart, right?

Which brings us back to what Bruce is trying to accomplish: he's not out suing people. He's -- in fact -- making things easier for people who want to comply with the GPL.

Re:Proposition

[david_thornley]

The first problem with your post is that most Free (as defined by the FSF) and Open Source (as defined by the OSI) licenses don't require source. By far the most commonly used ones that do are in the Gnu General Public License family. In order to answer that, you'd have to read some version of the GPL. Go ahead, it's more readable than a lot of C programs I've worked with.

Having done that, you'd know that you are the distributor when you pass a copy on to somewhere else. You would know the options of a distributor, which are to include the source code, or make it available at the same place as the binary (it's not your responsibility to get somebody to want it), or provide a written offer to provide it. (GPLv3 adds an option: put it on the net somewhere, and provide download directions.) You'd know that, for individual transactions and the like, you could provide a copy of somebody else's written offer.

So, if you buy a Linux computer you have no obligations, but the vendor does. If you use a Linux-based router or similar, you have no obligations. You don't have to accept the license to sell a router (the GPL does not limit your rights more than copyright law does, and the first-sale doctrine applies), but to be sure you could pass on the written offer or source code that came with it.

If I buy a PC with Ubuntu preinstalled, it's the responsibility of whoever installs the software to make sure the source is available.

Re:Proposition

[LWATCDR]

And if FLOSS dashboards inc goes belly up and Joe never bothered to get the code?
Or if Joe sells it to Betty and Betty sells it to Mike and he wants the source?
I do agree that Bruce doesn't want to sue honest mistakes. The problem is that Bruce isn't the only FOSS vendor. Companies can not work hoping that everybody will be as reasonable as Bruce.
Someday someone will bet a burr up their backside and a company that though that they where doing the right thing will be in a long expensive court case over something silly.
Or some poor sap will sell a Linux gadget on ebay and get sued for not providing the source when they didn't even know that the gadget had Linux on it.

Re:Proposition

[LWATCDR]

So thing if I make a gadget that uses a Linux SBC computer I don't have to make the source available on it since I didn't "Install it" on the SBC I just bought the boards? All I have to do is pass on the GPL and the link info?
I bet a lot of people will not agree with that one.
So If I sell a PC with Ubuntu on it pre installed I don't have to provide the source if I bought it pre installed. But if I re install it I do? What about if I update it?
I am not sure that is correct.
So if I buy a Dell with Ubuntu on it and for some reason I reinstall Ubuntu on it then put it on ebay I must provide the new owner with all the source code for all the software that I have installed on it. The Ubuntu repositories wouldn't count.

Re:Proposition

[shaitand]

Actually what you are mentioning doesn't matter because it qualifies as fair use under the right to second sale.

Joe is not a retailer, joe is an end user. The differences between a manufacturer, distributor, retailer, and end user is not merely numbers but well established in law and case history.

The right to second sale supersedes copyright and the requirements of the GPL. Now if Joe modifies that software and creates a derivative that isn't a second sale...

Re:Proposition

[LWATCDR]

Okay let me give you an example.
A small PC shop starts to offer PCs with Ubuntu pre installed. Ubuntu makes the source available but that doesn't seem good enough. So the small shop has to offer the source as well?
They must take the time to keep the latest source available? Sure nobody will probably ever ask them but they would have the legal requirement to do so.

If I give somebody a PC with Ubuntu on it to help them out I am now distributing LINUX and must provide them with info on how I will give it to them?
Or a User group handing out Fedora CDs?
What you see as so clear from a business point of view is full of peril.
I was thinking of offering a disk of Good FOSS to our customers free of charge but now it looks as if I would have to host source repositories to keep it legal.

Re:Proposition

[shaitand]

This may be a grey area of GPL vs common sense but it doesn't matter. When an end user transfer the software along with the product the right to second sale makes the distribution qualify as fair use so Joe the burger flipper doesn't need to agree to the GPL in the first place.

Now if Joe modified the software, that wouldn't be a second sale anymore. Joe goes from end user to manufacturer.

Re:Proposition

[LWATCDR]

Trust me the right to second sale isn't as clear cut in case law as you might think. I have been involved in a case like the one I described and it ended up costing A LOT.
Also no sane company trusts in the concept of Fair Use to cover them anymore.
I think the whole think is a lot fuzzier than a lot of people are comfortable with. So far the FOSS supporters have seemed to be working within common sense and good manners to resolve any "issues" but there is a lot of wiggle room that makes me nervous.
Here is an example.
A small PC store started to include a CD of FOSS programs like Gimp, FireFox, Thunderbird, 7Zip, Putty, and other good software that everybody in the know downloads. It is a nice introduction to FOSS for the customers. Now it seems to me that the store is now responsible to keep the source code for many of those programs available to the people they gave the disk to.
At that point I just wouldn't do it since it could be a huge legal hassle and risk for no real gain to me.

Re:Proposition

[mzs]

Bruce I had a very bad experience regarding the Westinghouse firmware. It was not like how you put it where a company like Sony can put up links to tar balls of source code. Westinghouse did go out of their way to keep me from getting the source code. When I tried to get the source code from them and even provided my serial number for the TV I had purchased, they claimed that there was no source code and no open source code was used. Finally I was able to get a firmware update from Westinghouse. Extracting it and poking around inside it was abundantly clear that busybox and other projects had been used. One was not GPL-like, basically only had in the terms that the software simply needed to be mentioned in the manual. It was omitted from the manualm there was a section listing trademarks and what-not of other products. That is how atrocious Westinghouse was. I returned the TV and decided to never purchase Westinghouse products again. I can easily believe that Westinghouse had dragged its feet for a very long time and did nothing. I am sorry that you are having trouble in your day to day work based on this, but enough is enough when it comes to Westinghouse in particular.

Re:Proposition

[fatboy]

If the source for the GPL software is unmodified and freely available from other sources why should the vendor have to duplicate it's availability?

To comply with the terms of the license, under which the vendor received the code. Otherwise, the vendor has absolutely no rights to distribute the software.

Re:Proposition

[Znork]

There are gray areas

Perhaps, but not as many as there may seem. The GPL only applies if you're doing things that copyright law would otherwise prevent.

Does BestBuy...

Not unless they're making copies of or modifying the software on it. As long as they're merely reselling devices copyright isn't involved.

If I make a router...

If you modify the software or make copies, rather than just shipping the same code that was on it from the start, yes.

What if I OEM

Again, if you copy the software or modify it... If you re-brand it by just exchanging some non-GPL files on each router you re-brand you don't really have to.

What if I sell...

If you've modified the software, you should probably stick a copy of the source in the package as well, but that would be getting fairly unrealistic. If you're just re-selling it, then again, copyright doesn't really apply (first sale doctrine, etc...).

making yet another copy of unmodified code available.

As long as it's unmodified code it may be entirely possible to set it up in such a way that someone else is actually making the copies and avoid the issue that way (ie, if you were manufacturing a router and either got the binaries pre-loaded with your chips, or flashed them directly off someone elses ftp site). You could conceivably even do that with modified code if you provide it upstream, wait until it's merged and then load your devices directly off the upstream.

Still, even if that might technically put you outside the GPL's influence, the appearance might not be so and merely being technically right does not mean you cant get sued anyway. Especially as such exceptions would enter the murkier areas of copyright law.

So ultimately what it comes down to is that the GPL requirements are easy and cheap to follow if you're in any kind of situation where you may seem to be copying and distributing GPL code. Often much easier than alternatives like trying to get code merged, or happening onto even one irate copyright holder or customer who might take offence at the lack of apparent compliance.

Re:Proposition

[Omnifarious]

With modern distributed revision control systems this situation can be handled pretty effectively. But, of course, a distributor is under no obligation to provide the revision control history.

I sort of think that should change, at least in the case of code that's in a Mercurial (or some other tool like it) repository. Or at least it should be considered the polite thing to do.

Re:Proposition

[jps25]

Okay let me give you an example.
A small PC shop starts to offer PCs with Ubuntu pre installed. Ubuntu makes the source available but that doesn't seem good enough. So the small shop has to offer the source as well?

Yes, or a written offer valid for at least 3 years to provide the source used.
They can charge for that, but not more than the actual physical distribution costs.

Let me give you an example.
I have a Kathrein Twin-DVB-S receiver.
It uses Linux, Busybox and a few other GPLed and LGPLed programs.
They don't ship it with the source and they don't host it on their site, but in order to comply with the GPL there's a written offer, valid for 3 years after the last unit sold, to provide the source on a physical medium (probably a CD).
They also state that they'll charge for the medium+time+shipping. This is in accordance with section 3b) of the GPL v2.

They must take the time to keep the latest source available? Sure nobody will probably ever ask them but they would have the legal requirement to do so.

No, not the latest source. Just the source that was used.

If I give somebody a PC with Ubuntu on it to help them out I am now distributing LINUX and must provide them with info on how I will give it to them?
Or a User group handing out Fedora CDs?

Yes, though I think section 3c) of the GPL v2 applies, which states:
Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

What you see as so clear from a business point of view is full of peril.
I was thinking of offering a disk of Good FOSS to our customers free of charge but now it looks as if I would have to host source repositories to keep it legal.

No, you wouldn't have to host source repositories.
You could. But you could also just give them a piece of paper stating that you'll provide the source used for three years if requested.
Though with the cost of dvd-r's these days, I'd think that it'd be easier to just put a source directory on the dvd and put the tarballs in there.

Re:Proposition

[cybernanga]

I may be wrong, buy I've always been under the impression that one has to provide access to the source, but don't necessarily have to provide the source itself.

In the case of your PC store, you could include the source on the CD, thereby fulfilling all obligations (As the CD is not self-updating, the versions will stay the same, and the supplied source code will always be relevant)

Alternatively, couldn't you also provide a text file on the CD, with links to the source as provided by the maintainers of the software?

Re:Proposition

[MaerD]

Bruce: Please, clarify: What are you looking for here?
He's going after them using the copyright interest he has in Busybox. You say you aren't being represented. Why do you not contact and/or sue them as well?
My understanding is these guys just try to enforce the license, and if they can't get an agreement sue. Do you wish them to make this class action for all developers?


I'm just not clear from the other article. You spend a lot of time talking about your customers and reassuring them, but reassurance seems pretty simple: Do like you would with any other piece of software, follow the license terms.
So again, what are you looking for?

Re:Proposition

[pem]

It's really not that difficult, especially if you are distributing a CD. Just include the source on the CD.

Re:Proposition

[fbjon]

Doesn't distribution necessarily involve copying?

Re:Proposition

[djmurdoch]

The GPL doesn't talk about user rights, it's about redistribution rights. So if you bought the TV on the understanding that you could modify and redistribute the software on it without following the GPL, then you've probably got a right to complain to whoever told you that. But that's not normally how TVs are sold, so I think you're stuck with it.

Re:Proposition

[shaitand]

"Also no sane company trusts in the concept of Fair Use to cover them anymore."

We weren't discussing companies. We were discussing end users reselling hardware that has GPL'd software loaded on it (unless I wasn't replying to what I thought I was replying to).

"A small PC store started to include a CD of FOSS programs like Gimp, FireFox, Thunderbird, 7Zip, Putty, and other good software that everybody in the know downloads. It is a nice introduction to FOSS for the customers. Now it seems to me that the store is now responsible to keep the source code for many of those programs available to the people they gave the disk to."

OR they could just include the source on the CD with the FOSS programs.

Re:Proposition

[selven]

That's a circular argument - X should require Y to do Z because X requires Z and Y has to follow X, and probably doesn't satisfy the intent of the person asking the question. The intent of the asker was most likely "why should the GPL require the vendor to duplicate the source". The answer is that the alternative is to have an imprecise, loophole-riddled test for whether the source is "adequately available" and to force companies to continuously make sure that the alternative ways of getting the source are still out there.

Re:Proposition

[zotz]

No, I don't think so. I think if you legally buy a large number of copies of a copyrighted work in one region / part of the world, ship them to another region and try to sell them in your retail establishment there that they can get you. Perhaps someone who knows could comment. (I am guessing based on a bunch of reading and discussions over the years but I could be way off base.)

Re:Proposition

[LWATCDR]

"Alternatively, couldn't you also provide a text file on the CD, with links to the source as provided by the maintainers of the software?"
No that I see as problem.

Re:Proposition

[LWATCDR]

So here is a problem.
I give out a bunch of OpenSuse disks to people. I am now have the legal responsibility to provide them with the source code. I wonder if every Linux supporter that gives a friend a CD has now probably violated the GPL by not telling their friend that they could ask them for the source and then provide them with the source!
So how many of the biggest Linux supporters have violated the GPL?

Re:Proposition

[slashqwerty]

Trust me the right to second sale isn't as clear cut in case law as you might think.

With respect to books it is. That's why Half-Price Books, libraries, university books stores, and other second-hand distributors can stay in business. I understand things can get somewhat murky when there are license restrictions such as with most software. However, the GPL explicitly gives the user the right to decline the GPL. If you don't want to abide by the GPL you still have the right to second-sale. The software will not have any restrictions outside the GPL muddying the waters.

We are not discussing distribution of copies or derivative works. This is simply with respect to reselling a piece of hardware with GPL's software embedded in it.

Re:Proposition

[Chandon Seldon]

At that point I just wouldn't do it since it could be a huge legal hassle and risk for no real gain to me.

Put the source on the CD, and you don't have a problem. It's not like it takes up a lot of space.

Re:Proposition

[the_womble]

I am not sure that it is Joe who has to distribute the code. It is the manufacturer that did the copying. Do you need a license to re-sell an embedded copyright work? If the dashboard computer runs Windows CE do I have to agree to Microsoft's EULA when I buy it? Does the seller need to check that all the licences are transferable?

So what happens? If Jim contacts the copyright holders is it really likely that they will sue Joe?

Re:Proposition

[blueskies]

Stop crying. The only thing this lawsuit is going to do is scare more people away from GPL.

Re:Proposition

[WATist]

Wouldn't it be even easier to include the source code in the memory of the the dash board so it is always is in compliance or integrate a isolated ROM chip from which the source code can be downloaded if having it in part of the the system raises objections.

Re:Proposition

[micheas]

I would just include the source in a directory. and not worry about it.

Re:Proposition

[selven]

Most Linux distributions tell you in the help files that it's GPL software and that there is source code available, and you can ask whoever distributed it to you for the source code.

Of course, I don't know whether that technically counts as following the GPL's requirements.

Re:Proposition

[LWATCDR]

But then you, the distributor is depending on someone else to host the source which everybody is saying is in violation of the GPL.

Re:Proposition

[mzs]

That is true. It was evidently clear from the initrd image that this was tweaked reference board hardware. The frustrating thing was that identical model numbers used different components that used different versions of firmware. It appeared that the firmware update I got had support for more TVs, ie some of the ones made earlier, but not all others. You could see the checks in the scripts. That is why they needed my serial number. In fact that firmware fixed some issues I had with the TV simply because the scripts became better at setting parameters correctly, but caused other problems by setting others now incorrectly.

It is a shame because my family had bought Westinghouse large appliances many years ago and they were very good. I also had some good experiences with Westinghouse computer monitors a few years back. It is a shame how bad their electronics and support people have become.

I just realized that I did not notice the allegations of legal boilerplate modifications that Bruce raised. I wish I could see what he means without spending time investigating it myself. We all learn early on to never touch those files and comments in headers and source code without the permission of a lawyer first unless we are simply adding the current year to the (c) line. That is very bad if that had been mucked with in unscrupulous ways, but there are lots of innocent changes that can be made. Without seeing exactly what Bruce means I don't want to speculate.

Re:Proposition

[skeeto]

You're getting lots of answers, but they're all just circular: "Because the license says so." That's an uninteresting answer that misses the purpose of your interesting question.

Imagine the time when the GPL was conceived. There was no world wide web, and the Internet still barely existed. RMS was selling copies of Emacs source code over snail mail on tapes. At this time there's not really a central, official repository for the various projects going on. It's just people passing source code around to each other in a distributed fashion, with the GPL enforcing the distributed system. That way there's really no authority for the code. Someone gets it, modifies it, passes it along, and so on, forking and branching like modern distributed version control. The distributed nature of the code makes its availability more robust.

It's still important today because it's better to have code distributed from many places than from a lone host, which would be a single point-of-failure.

Re:Proposition

[cgreuter]

More to the point, it doesn't actually qualify as copying. If you read the GPL, it talks about making copies, which the car's manufacturer did. Joe is transferring the copy he received from the manufacturer. He's never copied the software.

Re:Proposition

[Thinboy00]

Under the GPL, AFAIK the car would come with either source code or a written offer to provide source code. Joe is (IANAL) legally obligated to forward such materials to Jim (except for first sale which is potentially dubious w.r.t. software), and the written offer, if it came with the car in place of code, must be transferable.

Again: IANAL, YMMV, TINLA.

Re:Proposition

[Thinboy00]

A small PC store started to include a CD of FOSS programs like Gimp, FireFox, Thunderbird, 7Zip, Putty, and other good software that everybody in the know downloads. It is a nice introduction to FOSS for the customers. Now it seems to me that the store is now responsible to keep the source code for many of those programs available to the people they gave the disk to.
At that point I just wouldn't do it since it could be a huge legal hassle and risk for no real gain to me.

You sure about that? It looks like they could just set up an FTP server and put a URL on the disk. (Of course, Linux is GPLv2, so rules are a little different, but...)

Re:Proposition

[Thinboy00]

So if I buy a Dell with Ubuntu on it and for some reason I reinstall Ubuntu on it then put it on ebay I must provide the new owner with all the source code for all the software that I have installed on it. The Ubuntu repositories wouldn't count.

Provide a written offer. Most likely he's enough of a geek to be able to find the source on his own, given he's buying it with Ubuntu and not Windows. Alternatively, he might just want the hardware, in which case he doesn't want/need the source at all (and you could just as well zero the harddrive before sending it to him so there's no FLOSS on the computer).

Re:Proposition

[tehcyder]

The right to second sale supersedes copyright

Unfortunately that is not what the RIAA, Microsoft and many other copyright holders think.

Raises an interesting issue

[elrous0]

The final part of his statement raises an interesting issue. In the realm of OSS, contributions from multiple developers are encouraged. But what happens if those developers then get into a geek catfight later? This is all well and good if the work is true open source (everyone can just fork off an do whatever they want). But when you get into lawsuits over the more restrictive GPL license violations, that raises the issue of who gets to sue and who gets the proceeds from the suit (after all, what's to stop someone from just forking the code and taking out other developers' names from the copyright notice in the software, then suing without the other guys).

Re:Raises an interesting issue

[phantomcircuit]

That's an interesting point. It would appear that violating the GPL means that you have violated the copyright of every single developer. So could a violator potentially liable to multiple lawsuits? That could take a single violation of the GPL on something like the linux kernel into the billions of dollars in liability.

Re:Raises an interesting issue

[Bruce Perens]

In the U.S. any of the copyright holders can sue independently. Elsewhere, that might not be true. And they each have the right to decide to look for damages, or not. Mostly, Free Software developers forgive past infringement in exchange for current compliance and do not ask for damages. However, if a company is a long-term non-responder, they will look for compensation for their time.

Re:Raises an interesting issue

[dedazo]

Um, did you just "tweet" on Slashdot? That's !lame.

Re:Raises an interesting issue

[base3]

There are statutory damages for copyright infringement--specific performance isn't going to cut it--and they had their chance for that anyway. (IANAL but if NYCL wants to jump in here ...)

Re:Raises an interesting issue

[phantomcircuit]

That is 100% false. The GPL is a license to use copyrighted code. Failure to comply with the terms of the GPL constituted a breech of that license, as such anybody who is using GPL'd code and violates the license has violated the copyright of the authors of that code. Without a license to use the code the violation is exactly the same as if the code was being sold under a commercial license and was stolen.

So without a license to use the GPL'd code the prior violation of the authors copyright is not expunged because of current compliance with the license.

Monetary damages could be sought if the authors of the code so chose, instead the SFLC sues people and then demands a donation to settle.

Re:Raises an interesting issue

[Bruce Perens]

There is no monetary loss or other damage to the original developers.

This is presently being tried in another case, Jacobsen v. Katzer. It looks as if there will be significant damages that the Open Source developer can collect. The judge seems to think so in that he granted a motion for summary judgement (after at first rejecting it).

Re:Raises an interesting issue

[clone53421]

Then please explain to me what the hell the octothorpe historically represents in that context.

Re:Raises an interesting issue

[tomhudson]

the SFLC sues people and then demands a donation to settle.

s/SFLC/RIAA/g;

What's the difference here, except that for a "donation", the donor, not the recipient, pays the taxes ...

Re:Raises an interesting issue

[HiThere]

I don't know about #GPL, but the traditional "free the code" remedy that the FSF, etc. use is just traditional. Any developer whose copyrights are violated can hire a lawyer and try for actual damages. (Statutory damages require that the copyright have been registered, and are only effective from the date of registration.)

The FSF tries to negotiate the "free the code" remedies without going into court. If they are ignored until they *do* go into court, they'd probably ask for at least lawyers' fees, and possibly for anything up to the recall of all distributed merchandise. (Who can tell what a court would decide was fair?)

Caution: IANAL. This advice may be worth less than what you paid for it.

Re:Raises an interesting issue

[kz45]

"This is presently being tried in another case, Jacobsen v. Katzer. It looks as if there will be significant damages that the Open Source developer can collect. The judge seems to think so in that he granted a motion for summary judgement (after at first rejecting it)."

I always find these discussions a little ironic for the slashdot crowd. Clearly, there is bias going on here.

Take a look at any discussion about music, movie, or software piracy and you will see many people talking about how their "business model needs to change" and that "It doesn't hurt the original copyright holder because you are only making copies"

It's pretty easy to see the parallels between copyright infringent (the sharing of proprietary apps against the wishes of the original IP holder) and violating the GNU (the sharing of source code against the original wishes of the IP holder).

I could also easily make the same argument: It doesn't hurt the original owner. Even if the source has been copied, changed, and re-packaged, the original source is there for everyone to enjoy.

It's not theft (which has been used to describe GNU infringement). Theft would imply a physical item has been taken, and it hasn't.

This is why I can't take these discussions seriously. It's because it has nothing to do with freedom, because everyone's rights aren't supported, and everything to do with the GNU political movement.

Re:Raises an interesting issue

[jedidiah]

No. The difference is that with the SFLC the "initial demand" is merely to comply with the license.

The RIAA starts out by trying to shake you down for a large amount of money and threaten to sue you for an even larger amount if you don't cave in.

This is no "first warning" from the RIAA.

Re:Raises an interesting issue

[tepples]

Then please explain to me what the hell the octothorpe historically represents in that context.

The first character of an IRC channel's name.

Re:Raises an interesting issue

[clone53421]

That’s a little underwhelming, considering the “at” symbol had a rich 350-year heritage...

Re:Raises an interesting issue

[tepples]

It's pretty easy to see the parallels between copyright infringent (the sharing of proprietary apps against the wishes of the original IP holder) and violating the GNU (the sharing of source code against the original wishes of the IP holder).

If there were no copyright, then copyleft would be unnecessary, as it would be lawful for dedicated hobbyists to turn proprietary software into free software by disassembling it, commenting the crap out of it, and producing equivalent source code in a high level language. Mr. Stallman started the GNU project because a printer maker wouldn't even let him do that.

Re:Raises an interesting issue

[tepples]

dedazo wrote:

Um, did you just "tweet" on Slashdot?

What would DeadZero say about "tweeting"?

Re:Raises an interesting issue

[phantomcircuit]

I'm just wondering if settling with the SFLC, which only represents a few of the copyright holders, could potentially leave the company paying the SFLC and still being liable.

Re:Raises an interesting issue

[Anonymous Coward]

"@phantomcircuit -- the remedy for a #GPL violation is specific performance, i.e. making the source code available. There is no monetary loss or other damage to the original developers.".size
=> 184

So no, he didn't "tweet". A "tweet" is no more than 160 characters, posted on (by definition) Twitter, and is retarded. That post meets none of the requirements that would define it as a tweet. Your post, however, meets two of those three requirements.

Re:Raises an interesting issue

[Bryan Ischo]

Have you correlated the responses of specific posters here who are in support of copyright enforcement for GPL with their responses to other topics where the copyrights were held by the MPAA/RIAA/whatever? And have you then determined how many of these posters have differing opinions on copyright infringement depending on who the copyright holder is?

If not, you're just lumping everyone together and making a generalization that fits your own personal gripe, with no basis whatsoever.

If you have, then you should be talking to those people specifically, rather than trying to criticize the "slashdot crowd", which is a pretty pathetic windmill to tilt at really ...

Re:Raises an interesting issue

[sabre86]

It's pretty easy to see the parallels between copyright infringent (the sharing of proprietary apps against the wishes of the original IP holder) and violating the GNU (the sharing of source code against the original wishes of the IP holder).

Well, yes. Violating the GPL is copyright infringement. It's not just similar, it's legally identical.

You're right, the term "theft" shouldn't be used here.

This is why I can't take these discussions seriously. It's because it has nothing to do with freedom, because everyone's rights aren't supported, and everything to do with the GNU political movement.

Could you give a concise definition of what you mean by "rights"?
From a freedom standpoint, the GPL does clearly involve a tradeoff between guaranteeing user freedom and weakening developer freedom. But it seems reasonable, given that the current legal situation allows (and defaults) to the opposite, where user/consumer rights are very limited. It's an attempt to maximize the overall freedom within the current legal system.

Re:Raises an interesting issue

[abulafia]

and violating the GNU

Don't do that. They've got pointy horns and know how to use them.

Re:Raises an interesting issue

[tepples]

posted on (by definition) Twitter

Not anymore. WordPress supports tweeting now, unless you're going to claim "tweet" is a trademark.

Re:Raises an interesting issue

[selven]

!Lame? So it's awesome?

Re:Raises an interesting issue

[the_womble]

I can see lots of possible monetary damage to the developers:

1) Loss of reputation: their names are advertised if the source is distributed with their copyright notices on it. This may lead to loss of work (e.g. related consultancy work).
2) Extra development costs because of loss of access to a bug-fix or feature addition that was not released by the violator.
3) Loss of opportunities to sell proprietary licences.
4) Loss of information because they were not able to identify some devices as using their code. People spend money analysing market share, so the information has value. It may for example lead to lost opportunities to pitch for consultancy or customisation work, or to sell a proprietary add-on.

Re:Raises an interesting issue

[micheas]

The US printing business grew by copying european books verbatim and printing them on cheaper paper for 10% of the cost.(overhead included making sure that copyright was limited to sixteen years, also newspapers were not copyrightable.)

Re:Raises an interesting issue

[x2A]

It depends what "settling" means... paying damages doesn't grant you license to continue using the works, only complying with the license or obtaining a new license would do that. Once they comply with the license it doesn't matter (in that sense) who it was that brought it to trial. If a new license it obtained, that will only cover the works of the copyright holder who granted the new license, not work done by other people under the previous license.

Re:Raises an interesting issue

[Jorophose]

The difference is that, with a GPL license conflict, you're producing a deriative work and selling it.

Nobody cares if a company, or an individual, produced a deriative for internal distribution.

Downloading a movie is more like taking the source and walking away with it. Bootlegging is the equivalent of GPL abuse. And for a hardware manufacturer, does it really hurt that hard to release your source?

Waitaminute:

[Penguinisto]

If you (Bruce) aren't the one whose interests are being defended, whose are? Can someone actually sue w/o the copyright holder(s) involved?

Maybe I'm not getting something here, but w/o the involvement of the copyright holders (and/or at least naming them publicly), under what authority can they execute a lawsuit? Seems like the defendants' lawyers would be able to tear this one up in a heartbeat...

Someone care to fill in the blanks here?

Re:Waitaminute:

[Bruce Perens]

The current suit is brought in the name of Erik Andersen. Erik worked for an embedded Linux company, now defunct, for a few years and was paid to maintain Busybox during that time. During that time the company's name appeared in copyright statements, and mine mostly disappeared.

Re:Waitaminute:

[aristotle-dude]

The current suit is brought in the name of Erik Andersen. Erik worked for an embedded Linux company, now defunct, for a few years and was paid to maintain Busybox during that time. During that time the company's name appeared in copyright statements, and mine mostly disappeared.

Why then does this have anything to do with Erik? It is not his code. He was paid to write it and the copyright was assigned to his employer.

Re:Waitaminute:

[Bruce Perens]

Yes, there's that. He also worked on the program after he was no longer employed by that company. I am not disputing that he has significant copyright interest in the program as it exists today.

Re:Waitaminute:

[hostguy2004]

I agree with you, Bruce. It seems like your issue is that they didn't acknowlege your contribution in BusyBox, with regard to this lawsuit. BusyBox is widely used and your contributions are invaluable to the project. I can see why your upset. Just because someone else took over maintainance and development, doesn't remove your right as a copyright holder. Regards, John

Re:Waitaminute:

[SLi]

Then isn't that enough to enforce it? Where does your copyright come into picture? He's enforcing his copyright, not yours.

Re:Waitaminute:

[fm6]

I think the point Bruce is trying to make (correct me if I'm wrong Bruce) is that this litigation affects every consultant who uses Busybox in their project. If companies fear that using Busybox will make them vulnerable to litigation, they'll refuse to use it, no matter how many guarantees the consultants give them.

If I did that kind of consulting, I'd be very concerned. The whole point of FOSS is that it creates a community that uses and improves it without a lot of hassle. Litigation tends to screw that up. (And no, it doesn't matter if the litigation is based on bad law; you can still run up big legal bills proving that it's bad.) Of course, some litigation is unavoidable, just to keep the rules in force. But this lawsuit appears (to me; Bruce is being more circumspect) to be motivated more by the chance of fat settlements than any real concern over GPL abuse.

Worst summary ever.

[WiiVault]

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?

Re:Worst summary ever.

[LitelySalted]

Here's the original story:

http://linux.slashdot.org/story/09/12/14/210207/SFLC-Sues-14-Companies-For-BusyBox-GPL-Violations

Re:Worst summary ever.

[clone53421]

I’m with you. Can somebody explain what Busybox is, and what exactly these lawsuits are about?

TFA just states that “The basic claim of the lawsuits is that the GPL license terms must be followed by all parties that distribute works containing GPL software” and hints at something about “endanger[ing] the proprietary software of any company that makes the most trivial effort to comply with its license”.

From this paragraph,

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.

it appears that Andersen is claiming GPL violations, and Perens believes that he (and other developers) had a significant stake in that version of the software and were not represented in the lawsuit.

Still, that’s not a whole lot to go by.

Re:Worst summary ever.

[Bruce Perens]

When you make an embedded linux system, like in a network access point, Busybox is the user-mode component, and the other main component is the Linux kernel. Busybox provides a command-line environment that looks like the one provided in a Linux distribution, but is smaller. SFLC is involved in prosecuting Busybox violations because nobody with a significant copyright in the Linux kernel has asked them to prosecute GPL violations with regard to Linux.

Re:Worst summary ever.

[ultraexactzz]

Have to agree, actually - It's a good and concise submission, but we usually get some links to old coverage, related pages, and some background - all of which is lacking, here. Kdawson must have skipped his coffee this afternoon.

How about it, Bruce, can you give us the nickel summary? Thanks.

Re:Worst summary ever.

[larry bagina]

busybox is a single binary containing stripped down versions of a shell and common utilities (rm, ls, etc), which require less disk space and less memory. It's used in embedded devices, NAS boxes, TVs, etc.

Re:Worst summary ever.

[digitalhermit]

Onions on a belt. My hovercraft is full of eels. Watch out for spotted cats. It's probably some in thing. I never understand them either.

Re:Worst summary ever.

[MasterPatricko]

For those too lame to Google the words they don't understand in TFA.

Bruce Perens is a prominent open-source programmer and advocate. He co-founded the OSI with Eric S. Raymond and wrote the first Open Source Definition that became the first DFSG.

BusyBox is a collection of userland tools to go with the Linux kernel, similar to the GNU utilities except optimised for use in embedded systems. They are the base of most complex embedded software on devices worldwide.

Because BusyBox is so widely used but not well-known, companies generally through ignorance fail to comply with GPL guidelines stating that they must provide the source to any binaries they ship on their devices.

The SFLC is the Software Freedom Law Centre and they represent free software interests in legal matters. In this case they are suing various embedded device manufacturers who sell BusyBox-based devices and are continuing to violate the GPL by not providing the source even when warned.

Bruce Perens was the original writer of BusyBox many many years ago. However the SFLC has not included him in this lawsuit. He is no longer involved in BusyBox and the current authors say that every line that Bruce contributed to BusyBox has now been replaced by newer code; but he argues that because some of the code in the offending devices is actually based off older BusyBox code, he should actually be represented in the lawsuit.

This little disagreement looks like he's just wanting a share of any monetary damages awarded - or at least his name in the news. Bruce certainly doesn't have any grounds to stop the lawsuit anyway, and he approves of protecting the GPL.

Re:Worst summary ever.

[fulldecent]

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

Sorry, I just got a nosebleed by looking at your user number. Please stop embarrassing yourself and STFW.

Re:Worst summary ever.

[Bruce Perens]

I am not sure that these suits even ask for damages other than for the time spent on prosecuting the infringement. But one of the issues is that since I am not party to the suits, I can't see that.

I also don't agree that my copyright interest has been removed from the program. Although one of the developers once said so, I don't think he knew what he was talking about.

Re:Worst summary ever.

[dangitman]

For those too lame to Google the words they don't understand in TFA.

So, now the solution to everything is Google? And people who expect articles to be written in a coherent manner so they don't have to use Google to understand it are "lame"?

Hmmmm.... I thought this whole "Information Technology" thing was supposed to make things easier and more efficient, not create extra work for us.

Re:Worst summary ever.

[maxume]

Is this a parody?

Re:Worst summary ever.

[BitZtream]

So you're arguing over if or if not you are to be included in a lawsuit about if someone has or hasn't violated a copyright ... and you don't even care enough to know if anyone is bothering to expect any damages or what they are?

Are you fucking kidding me?

As if the lawsuit itself isn't an example of a waste of time for the courts, you being all wishywashy about it and just basically being a pain in the ass is a very bad example for companies who may at some point consider using GPL software.

Look guys, they'll sue you and waste your time even if they aren't actually trying to get anything out of it.

You're all acting like those annoying bullies in school who didn't actually want to do anything more than be a pain in your ass to watch you suffer.

I realize that its about getting companies to respect GPL, but until you guys stop acting like a bunch of school kids fighting amongst yourselves, why the hell should anyone else take you seriously? If you actually don't care, shut the hell up, if you do care, act like it, and no posting a little quip on your blog and sending it to slashdot is not actually doing something about it, thats called whining.

Re:Worst summary ever.

[ilikejam]

You have wurdled my cordwangler.

Hatstand, Sir. Hatstand.

Re:Worst summary ever.

[CraftyJack]

the current authors say that every line that Bruce contributed to BusyBox has now been replaced by newer code; but he argues that because some of the code in the offending devices is actually based off older BusyBox code, he should actually be represented in the lawsuit.

Ship of Theseus?

Re:Worst summary ever.

[Hurricane78]

Simple thing: Would the code as it is today, exist without your prior code?

Definitely not. It is based on your code and ideas. That in in literal writing is different, and is a transformed version, does not change that.

A simple comparison: Take an image, put a couple of optical distortion filters on top, and save it as a png instead of jpeg. The image still is in there, and not magically “gone”. had the image not existed, the result would not be the same. Therefore the original image is an integral part, even if that is not visible anymore.

Re:Worst summary ever.

[Bruce Perens]

Unget updandered.

I don't know what the damages are because the case settled under seal, and thus it's not published, and the parties won't or can't (under the terms of the seal) tell me.

Re:Worst summary ever.

[QuantumG]

Shit Bruce,

Sue them or STFU.

Re:Worst summary ever.

[rbcd]

Even if they have replaced every line that you wrote, surely if this was done step by step then their resultant work is still derivative of your work, so your copyright interest remains? Not that I'm a lawyer or anything.

Re:Worst summary ever.

[Provocateur]

I'm surprised that a lot of folks aren't aware of Busybox, it's been on nearly every install CD or live
CD I've ever tried. Man, does that count as having read the F'in manual? Y'know that you hit Alt-F2 or
Alt-F3 to troubleshoot an installation, or something...

Or maybe Linux has reached mainstream level already, and few people ever even dare press Alt-F2... All
I'm missing now is a low UID...

Re:Worst summary ever.

[Intron]

It's even worse than that. Since every cell in your body is replaced over time, can Bruce even claim to be the same person that wrote the original code?

Re:Worst summary ever.

[QuantumG]

Pa, either put your money where your mouth is or shut it.

Don't go around crying about what laws someone may or may not have broken. Talk to your lawyer, find out if you have a claim, and act on it.

Airing your dirty laundry in public does nothing but weaken the cause.

Re:Worst summary ever.

[knewter]

It can't be laziness, man. Posting on slashdot in these AJAXy days is downright unwieldy. Lazy is googling.

My favorite part is waiting 25 minutes for the previews to show up. I can't even think of a way to write a web app that took that long for such a simple action, traffic or no. Other than posting, I actually like the ajaxy comment system.

Re:Worst summary ever.

[Dausha]

"This little disagreement looks like he's just wanting a share of any monetary damages awarded - or at least his name in the news. Bruce certainly doesn't have any grounds to stop the lawsuit anyway, and he approves of protecting the GPL."

So, in the article he asserts a copyright interest in BusyBox. He asserts that subsequent BusyBox code is derived from his work. He asserts he released via GPL. He asserts that subsequent BusyBox developers have violated the GPL by removing the copyright statement of ancestor developers (including himself). So, he's claiming the plaintiffs in the lawsuit may be liable to him for copyright violation themselves. His use of "appear to have" is a legal weaseling to avoid being found wrong in court and accruing damages.

Does he have grounds? Well, if he argues that he is the original copyright owner (which he does) and that they violate his GPL (which he does), then it certainly appears that he is claiming they cannot have grounds to sue. If I steal your car (or borrow it to go "to the store," but then drive it out-of-state for a fortnight), and somebody damages the car while I possess it, I cannot sue for damages to the car; right? You can sue for damages against me or the other party (or both?).

You cannot derive a work without permission (license) from the copyright owner. GPL was that permission, but he claims they violated the license. Had they complied with the GPL, then they would have standing. Legally speaking, you cannot profit from your own error.

I don't think Bruce needs his name in the news; I think he's established himself. It sounds like the lawsuit is harming his interests and he is trying to protect his interests. He's not asking for monetary damages (which can be fairly high), but is asking to work with violators (for a nominal fee) to bring them back into compliance. So, aside from the apparent claim that they are violating his right, he's also claiming they are harming his livelihood. He came to Slashdot because it's an expedient way to get the word out.

All this to say, don't say "certainly."

Re:Worst summary ever.

[mdhoover]

Maybe you are right... though it seemed he did a pretty thorough analysis during the GPLv2 vs v3 flamefest ...
http://busybox.net/~landley/forensics.txt

Re:Worst summary ever.

[Bruce Perens]

Well, I was entirely snookered by it for a while. But every lawyer I've ever discussed it with doesn't buy it. And as I've looked into it, it seems less likely. IMO we all got fooled.

Re:Worst summary ever.

[micheas]

IANAL but have spent a lot time this last decade around the US legal system.

I would see if you could not find someone that would file a motion with the court to let you see the settlement.

You would probably have to propose and agree to terms of non-disclosure, but you are an interested party that has standing to know if you have reason to enter negotiations with the defendants in the lawsuit for copyright infringement. The matter has been settled, in an identical suit with identical facts with the identical defendant.

You would almost certainly have to provide proof of copyright ownership of some of the code subject in the complaint.

You might have to file a lawsuit in order to see the case, but an attorney could advise you on the details.

Lawyers are like nukes, you have them because the other side has them, but using them makes everything much more complicated.

Good luck

Re:Worst summary ever.

[alexo]

I also don't agree that my copyright interest has been removed from the program. Although one of the developers once said so, I don't think he knew what he was talking about.

This is easy to check. Download the source, compare it to your code, indicate what pieces of code you have a "copyright interest" in.

Re:Hey

[chill]

No pitching your own crappy stuff here, ok?

On Slashdot?! You must be new here.

Does it matter?

[jonbryce]

If Messrs Andersen and Landley own copyrights to any part of the Busybox program, they can sue for infringement of the copyright on their bit of the code, even if the majority of it was written by you.

In any case, I believe it contains a Linux kernel, or at least parts of it, written by Linus Torvalds and his friends, and presumably at least parts of the gnu tools that Busybox provides stripped down versions of. This of course is perfectly permissible, and the whole point of the GPL and other free and open source software licences is to allow and encourage this sort of thing to happen. All these developers have a copyright interest in the Busybox program, and could sue if they wanted to.

Re:Does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

busybox is just a collection of userland tools so it doesn't contain any parts of the kernel. Otherwise your point stands.

Re:Does it matter?

[dch24]

They would need to specify that they are claiming copyright on specific parts of the code.

Misrepresenting their claim could seriously hurt their chances in court.

Further, it doesn't seem like Bruce is trying to get in on the court case. He's representing his interests as a consultant and a copyright holder -- so it would be wise for the SFLC and Andersen and Landley to pay attention -- or they could end up on the receiving end of all this suing.

Not by Bruce, mind you. I think there's a chance the companies they are suing will countersue for damages and use Bruce's arguments in the case.

Re:Does it matter?

[jonbryce]

Fair enough, but then there is presumably a pirated copy of Linux in these products as well as a pirated copy of Busybox.

Does it really matter?

[Silverlancer]

If person A and person B both contribute significant code to a program, and person B decides that he wants to sue Company C for infringing his copyright, how does Person A have the right to stop him? Even if Person A doesn't care about Company C infringing his copyright, Company C is still infringing Person B's copyright, and Person B can still sue them. (IANAL)

Re:Does it really matter?

[MasterPatricko]

I don't think Bruce wants to stop the lawsuit, he justs wants to get a piece of the pie.
Basically his name isn't in the lawsuit and he's complaining that he was once a BusyBox author, why didn't the SFLC didn't offer to represent him too.
I'm not really sure what he hopes to gain unless he wants a piece of any monetary damages awarded ... ?

Re:Does it really matter?

[maxume]

It matters because Bruce's strategic consulting revenues are (apparently) being impacted by the law suits.

This is him trying to separate himself from the suits (in the public perception sense, he states that he is not party to them).

Re:Does it really matter?

[benjamindees]

I'm guessing that person A could argue that the work contributed by person B was mostly derivative and thus person B does not have any copyright claim due to this.

Personally, I'm surprised that anyone would be bold enough to actually remove copyright notices from existing GPL'd code. Even if you completely rewrite something, piece by piece, over a period of time, that doesn't mean your work is not derivative of the original.

I'm not aware that there is yet any clear rule on this issue, or even that one is possible.

Re:Does it really matter?

[mmoore]

But person A disagrees, which I guess is the point to all this. I personally don't think anything is going to change as far as the legal action represented here, but if it did, things like this could be the beginning of the end for the GPL. I'm actually surprised that they never accounted for anything like this.

Re:Does it really matter?

[Surt]

A does not have the right to stop him. A may have the LEVERAGE to stop him, if B happens to have gone crazy violating A's copyrights in the process.

Re:Does it really matter?

[Andy Dodd]

I think the issue is whether false claims have been made about Person A in the process of Person B suing Company C. Bruce's statement kind of implies that.

Also, Bruce's statement implies that SFLC is using rather overzealous "sue without negotiation beforehand" techniques that are damaging to the business of some of the other Busybox developers, including himself. Whether he has a legal leg to stand on is unknown, either way it's kind of a "dick move" on the part of those involved in the lawsuit.

It's just like the patent system - there are companies that are typically very reasonable in terms of patent license negotiations and consider a lawsuit to be an absolute last resort (I knew someone who worked for Lucent's IP licensing organization - lawsuits were an asbolute last resort for them.), while other companies prefer to patent troll and immediately open up with a lawsuit.

Re:Does it really matter?

[mmoore]

So that raises the question that someone else here already asked. How can they legally sue without all contributing authors being involved, or at least consenting? At what point did the ownership of the software solely lie in the hands of this one person?

Re:Does it really matter?

[schon]

I don't think Bruce wants to stop the lawsuit, he justs wants to get a piece of the pie.

Doesn't sound like that to me.

I'm not really sure what he hopes to gain unless he wants a piece of any monetary damages awarded ... ?

How about clarification, like he says in his letter:

Unfortunately, all of this is confusing my strategic consulting customers. Thus, I will offer them a waiver of my interest where appropriate.

What this says to me is that he has clients who got spooked by the suit, and he's publically stating that he's not a party to it, and won't sue them... which is pretty much the opposite of "wanting a piece of the pie."

Re:Does it really matter?

[Lumpy]

When lawyers are involved. It's always a "dick move"

Re:Does it really matter?

[Bruce Perens]

Bruce's statement implies that SFLC is using rather overzealous "sue without negotiation beforehand"

No, they probably did contact the now-defendants. That's their usual process.

Re:Does it really matter?

[Andy Dodd]

Based on other comments, it sounds like any copyright holder has an individual right to sue.

So there is nothing legally stopping the current proceedings.

However, it might (IANAL) be possible for the other developers to engage in legal proceedings indicating that lawsuits without proper negotiations are damaging their ability to negotiate peacefully with other companies.

Re:Does it really matter?

[dch24]

It doesn't have to be sole ownership for them to have a claim of copyright on portions of the code.

But they have to state clearly in their court claim that they are suing based on the copyright they actually hold. That is, the copyright on portions of the busybox code. They can sue on that.

That's the same argument that lets Bruce claim they need to respect his copyright on other portions of the busybox code, especially as that affects his business relationships (he's a consultant). He might also be saying that the SFLC, Andersen, and Landley are making false claims, which are in violation of his copyright. But I don't think he's saying that -- in particular because he's not trying to sue people, he's trying to negotiate with companies so they will comply with the license.

Re:Does it really matter?

[Hatta]

It sounds like he'd like to be able to waive the interest of Erik Anderson as well.

Re:Does it really matter?

[geminidomino]

What I take from it is that Person A (Bruce) and Person B (this other guy) both contributed to BusyBox and now PersonSet C (Bruce's clients) are starting to get worried that Person B is going to go after THEM, and Person A is taking a public stance to reassure them.

IANAL

[Gudeldar]

IANAL but my understanding is that any developer that has code in a GPL licensed project has standing to sue for violations of the license provided that they didn't assign their copyright to someone else. I don't know if Busybox forces contributors to assign their copyrights to someone but it doesn't appear as though they do.

Perens's major complaints seems to be that the lawsuits are damaging his consulting business and that Andersen, Landrey, etc. removed the copyright statements of other developers. While I sympathize with him on both points, they are entirely unrelated to the merit of the SFLC's lawsuit.

Slashdot: Stuff that matters...

[Anonymous Coward]

...to Bruce Perens.

Re:OT: Can someone verify BP's favicon?

[CopaceticOpus]

It has to be a glitch with Chrome, as the source code of Bruce's site doesn't specify any favicon.

On my PC, Chrome does not show a favicon, and neither does Firefox.

GPL == ClusterFuck

[Anonymous Coward]

No wonder the major forces in unix development these days, Google and Apple, are entirely BSD focused.

Re:GPL == ClusterFuck

[Anonymous Coward]

Especially the parent's given example of Google of which is majority of the time releasing code changes or creating projects under GPL license, and not to mention recent projects such as the Android OS using Linux for the RTOS on cell phones and the like.

The open source parts of Android beyond the kernel are Apache 2.0 licensed. Google Chrome is BSD licensed. Google Chrome OS is BSD licensed. That Go programming language from Google that was all the rage a few months ago due to that naming problem is BSD licensed. One could go on and on that shows that the vast majority of their open sourced code is under the 3-clause BSD or BSD-like license.

Quick and dirty translation:

[Jailbrekr]

Stop being a dick.

Re:OT: Can someone verify BP's favicon?

[clone53421]

Hmm... that is most definitely Microsoft’s favicon, but requests for http://perens.com/favicon.ico gives this response:

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Via: 1.1 ISA03
Connection: Keep-Alive
Proxy-Connection: Keep-Alive
Content-Length: 0
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 20:50:07 GMT
Content-Type: image/x-icon
ETag: "dc1-0-46da9de6675c0"
Server: Apache
Last-Modified: Wed, 01 Jul 2009 19:24:15 GMT
Accept-Ranges: bytes
Keep-Alive: timeout=2, max=100

Looks like you found a bug in the way Chrome reacts to a zero-length favicon.ico! :o

Re:OT: Can someone verify BP's favicon?

[Bruce Perens]

favicon.ico is a zero-length file. So, you get the default I guess.

it doesn't matter

[jipn4]

Anybody who has contributed to a piece of GPL software has standing to bring lawsuits against people who violate the GPL. Who has contributed the "majority" of the code is immaterial. I'm sorry this is inconvenient for Bruce Perens, but it can't reasonably work any different.

Re:it doesn't matter

[oh2]

Well, if thats true he must have some standing to have opinions about lawsuits where code he has contributed appears ? Nothing weird about that IMO.

Re:it doesn't matter

[Diesel Dave]

Anyone who has contributed to a piece of GPL software, reserves their copyright, and does not violate the GPL license has rights to defend their own copyright in the work. The issue you may be missing is this is not clearly the situation with Anderson for several reasons.

Re:it doesn't matter

[TexasTroy]

If I understand this correctly, all one needs to do is get one change into the source and they have standing to bring a lawsuit against any company not in compliance. From what I read in Wikipedia, these guys have already received undisclosed amounts in previous settlements. That could get interesting - some minor developer suing and getting paid for the work a majority of others have performed. What standing do the other developers have for getting a cut of any settlement?

Re:it doesn't matter

[bug1]

What standing do the other developers have for getting a cut of any settlement?

None, the settlement is only with the those named in the action.

Other copyright holders can seek their own seperate settlement by taking separate action against the violators.

Re:it doesn't matter

[jmv]

"violating the GPL" (technically it's just infringing copyright) may put you in trouble with the other copyright owners, but I don't see how it prevents you from filing a lawsuit against other people who also violate the GPL if you own part of the copyright.

Re:OT: Can someone verify BP's favicon?

[phantomcircuit]

It's a bug, http://perens.com/favicon.ico returns an empty file (zero bytes long). I guess chromo can't handle that (firefox does ;) )

Backing Bruce's Copyright

[Diesel Dave]

I am the one that handed BusyBox over to Anderson after maintaining it for 2 years.

I believe I worked with Busybox longer then Bruce did and during my time I reorganized the code, but still consider Bruce the primary root Copyright holder and license grantor. Anderson is claiming complete Copyright and that is simply an impossibility. As far as I am concerned, this claim is a GPL violation in and of itself.

Even if every line of code Bruce or myself wrote were replaced, it was done so on his and subsequently my license terms which are the GPL. My privileges and Anderson's privileges (if any ?) to alter and redistribute Bruce's work are based on those license terms derived from Bruce's initial publication and you can not simply 'code them away' unless you start from scratch.

Re:Backing Bruce's Copyright

[benjamindees]

Anderson is claiming complete Copyright and that is simply an impossibility. As far as I am concerned, this claim is a GPL violation in and of itself.

This is exactly the most disturbing issue to me here. Being able to re-write GPL code and then claim sole copyright on that new code would completely invalidate the entire concept of derivative work on which the GPL and every other software license is based.

Re:Backing Bruce's Copyright

[larry bagina]

He's tainted by working with GPL code, so he can't relicense it as something else.

Re:Backing Bruce's Copyright

[H0p313ss]

what the fuck are you smoking? If bruce's code is gone, then what does he have copyright on? The use of the GPL license?

As another poster points out, if it can be shown that the new code is a derivative work (as defined by the GPL) of the original code then the original licensing terms and intellectual property rights still apply.

Re:Backing Bruce's Copyright

[bzzfzz]

This is not governed by the GPL but rather by case law regarding what does and does not constitute a "derived work." Case law in this area is vague, contradictory, and evolving. Litigation in this area tends to be expensive and unpredictable.

The claim of ongoing copyright "even if every line of code ... were replaced" is one of the major arguments SCO is making. I don't it's a valid argument and I certainly hope that the courts don't find it to be valid.

Finally, copyright law does not require registrants to identify the new creative contribution when registering a work derived from a prior work (whether PD or copyrighted). By registering copyright, a necessary step prior to pursuing infringement claims, Anderson does "not claim complete Copyright."

Re:Backing Bruce's Copyright

[mathfeel]

IANAL, so this is confusing even though I previously thought GPL was pretty straight forward. The following hypothetical is in no way related to busybox:

Suppose A wrote some software and released it under GPL, then later abandoned it.

Scenario 1: B took over with the blessing of A, who's off to do other stuff (so there is no trademark dispute here). He never quite like the way A's done things. So B rewrites most the code, all the core algorithms. Questions. Who owns the right? Surely B owns version 2.0 and A version 1.0, but can A still make claim about version 2.0? Is 2.0 still a derivative work from 1.0? (I think yes) If so, what about scenario 2 below.

Scenario 2: C also saw the value in A's project, and he also wants to do things differently. C never saw the code itself, even though he's entitled to. So C rewrites essentially the same project coming up with similar algorithm with B and release it under non-libre license.

The result of both scenario is the same: complete rewrite of A's GPL'd code. In the first scenario, incremental changes are supposedly log and therefore must re-released under GPL. In the second scenario, there is not reference to A's code, but how can C prove that he never looked at A's code it court? It is opened after all.

Re:Backing Bruce's Copyright

[SoTerrified]

Slashdot and car analogies... I buy a car. You ask if you can borrow the car to use, and I say "Sure". Shortly after you find the tires have poor traction, and you have them replaced with better tires. A while after, you see the bumper is dented, so you replace it with a better one. Continue this process until, over the course of years, every single part of the car has been been replaced. (Yes, even the frame was damaged, so you bought a new frame and had all the parts moved to the new frame.) At what point did I cease to have any right to the car? When I come up and say "Hey, how is my car doing", do you really think it's correct to respond "I replaced all the parts, it's my car now. You don't own anything."

Re:Backing Bruce's Copyright

[c0d3g33k]

I'll have to agree with larry here. This touches an area that is nuanced, to say the least, but replacing the code needs to be an option in some cases. As an example, I worked on an OSS project several years back. For perfectly valid reasons, the current project maintainer wanted to change the license. He attempted to contact all the authors for their permission to relicense the code under the new license. If he got no response, or the original author said "no", then his only option was to replace the code with code he had written himself. This seems a perfectly valid approach to me, considering the old code is still available from the same source. I happened to miss noticing his request until it was too late (infrequently checked mail account), so was happy he could replace the code and move on.

I suppose if one wanted to adopt a strict interpretation of "derivative", then replacing code within an existing framework might be considered in violation of the license, but people really need to think before playing this card. It makes situations like "if you show us patented code in our application, we'll replace it" much more difficult to reconcile easily, especially if the code violating the patent was part of the original application code. Then the replacement code is 'derivative' and still subject to the original claims.

That's a mighty big can of worms you could be opening, Diesel Dave. Maybe even Pandora's box.

Re:Backing Bruce's Copyright

[larry bagina]

Nice try but a car is a physical object and you have the title to it. But if you buy a honda civic and replace all the parts with non-honda civic parts, it's no longer honda civic.

Re:Backing Bruce's Copyright

[euxneks]

So what would happen if, (creating a trivially ridiculous case for the sake of argument) I created a "hello world" application, GPL'd it, handed the project over to another maintainer, and that maintainer rewrote it to play movies? Would I still get copyleft claims if someone then broke the GPL on that resulting source?

What, exactly, is the thing that is GPL'd? The name of the project? The _spirit_ of the project?

Re:Backing Bruce's Copyright

[julesh]

In the second scenario, there is not reference to A's code, but how can C prove that he never looked at A's code it court? It is opened after all.

C doesn't have to prove it. A would have to provide evidence that he did.

Re:Backing Bruce's Copyright

[BitZtream]

GPL is about copyright. Copy RIGHT ends when there is no copy that you have rights over in the work.

Copyright does restrict ideas, it restricts implementations. GPL and copyright both end when the code has been replaced.

You can argue this one here on slashdot all day long and/or you are blue in the face and it won't make a bit of difference. The first time this idea goes to court against a company of any real size, copyright and GPL will lose as the idea is utterly ludicrous.

Car Analogy:
Ford makes a car that uses GPL software for a new power windows controller. Over time Ford expands the controller to control everything in the car. You find out and sue them for using your GPL code.

So they replace the code for the window controller with clean code.

At this point, no judge anywhere on the planet, in any country is going to think an acceptable solution is for Ford to redesign the entire product (in this case the window/door controller system that grew from your work) and start from scratch, JUST because part of it was your work. You guys need to get over this idea that GPL extends to touch everything anywhere near it. Much like EULA's, just because you say it, doesn't actually make it true, even if in your own little world it does. The rest of us don't live in your world, thank god.

Your work as been removed, you no longer have any claims, regardless of shared ideas. That would be a patent area if you'd like to go argue that.

Re:Backing Bruce's Copyright

[c0d3g33k]

The violation in your analogy would be that the car in it's original form was destroyed, thus depriving the lender of his property. The new car isn't the original property. If, during the act of replacing all the old parts you assembled them to eventually create the original car you borrowed, then your new car is yours and the original goes back to the owner. The analogy to software would be that you provided the original source code in it's original form to anyone who asked, in compliance with the original license. And any intermediate forms that still contained old code. The interesting point comes when all the original code is gone and all that is left is the new code, solely created by the new author. Other than the nebulous "derivative", I don't see how the original author should have much claim over the new work, particularly if the old work is still available.

Re:Backing Bruce's Copyright

[ComputerSlicer23]

That's not strictly true. If I started out with a movie that was original "Star Wars", and I slowly but surely removed every frame of that film, and then saved the film. It would not be considered a derived work of Star Wars. No harm no foul. If I started out with the Linux Kernel, and I released version 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, up to 0.9, and finally released Kirbix at 1.0 and claimed I owned the copyright. I would be obligated to give the source code out for versions 0.1 and 0.9 (assuming I distributed them to anyone), but at 1.0, I'd be well within my rights to re-license the software. Bruce is claiming "compiliation copyright", which I'm unfamiliar with the basics of that.

I don't understand what legal principle is being applied to claim some piece of the copyright if I had replaced all of the pieces and parts. The mostly commonly known situation like this is the old BSD UNIX distribution. Eventually it was determined that UC had sole rights to all of their copy of UNIX, because they had slowly but surely replaced all of the pieces of AT&T's UNIX. I thought 4.4BSD Lite was essentially BSD UNIX minus the 7-10 files that AT&T still owned. Eventually those last bits were re-written and 386BSD and it's decendents (FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and NetBSD) were spawned in the late '80s (looks like I might have the timeline wrong, but the salient points at the end of the Wikipedia story linked above shows the thrust of this is correct). In my mind that sets a much stronger precedent then what I have seen of Bruce's claims, assuming that "I've re-written every line" claim is true. However, I believe Bruce is probably right, that it hasn't all been re-written. Just a hunch. Re-writing "everything" is pretty darn difficult.

Kirby

Re:Backing Bruce's Copyright

[martin-boundary]

This isn't a problem with the GPL, it is really a problem with the way copyright is interpreted by lawyers and judges. The GPL doesn't suddently make a non-derivative work derivative, or a derivative work non-derivative. It uses the existing normal definitions of copyright law, and builds on them.

So the problem you are talking about is the exact same problem that a painter or a writer has.

Re:Backing Bruce's Copyright

[benjamindees]

Obviously you can't prove a negative, but one method of protecting yourself from derivation claims is to utilize clean-room or "Chinese wall" reverse engineering, documenting the entire process to be able to demonstrate later in court if necessary how you were able to re-implement a piece of code without actually copying or deriving from it.

Re:Backing Bruce's Copyright

[martin-boundary]

It makes situations like "if you show us patented code in our application, we'll replace it" much more difficult to reconcile easily, especially if the code violating the patent was part of the original application code. Then the replacement code is 'derivative' and still subject to the original copyright claims, but not patent claims.

Don't equate copyright and patent laws, they are completely different. A patent stops you from exploiting your own ideas, regardless of how they popped into your head, whenever someone else filed it first. A copyright stops you only from copying or modifying a existing work of someone else, but doesn't stop you from creating the exact same thing from scratch.

If there's patented code in their app, it's ok to remove it but the replacement cannot implement the same idea or else you've done nothing. When there's a patent claim over some functionality, you have to remove that functionality, and a clean program no longer has that functionality at all. But if you rewrite parts of the app, the original authors' copyright still applies on your own code. To be sure to be copyright clean, you can study their app, but then you fire up your editor and start with a blank screen and write everything yourself.

Re:Backing Bruce's Copyright

[benjamindees]

Compilation copyright is a somewhat ridiculous concept that has gained popularity recently. It's akin to saying that you own the copyright to the particular selection of packages and programs on a particular Linux distro or install CD, for instance.

My impression is that there are degrees of "copyrightability" at issue. You have a much stronger copyright claim by re-writing a complete functional unit, such as a program, all at once than you would have by re-writing a single function or replacing a program line-by-line.

Your example of Star Wars leads me to suggest that if you replaced every frame, one at a time, yet still ended up with, say, a western about a religious guy and his gun-slinging buddy and their girl-friend dodging bounty-hunters and rebelling against a corrupt government, then an argument could be made. Is Dark Side of the Moon derived from The Wizard of Oz in a meaningful way? I couldn't say. Certainly not in an obvious way.

Re:Backing Bruce's Copyright

[c0d3g33k]

Ok, Sloppy on my part - I wasn't confusing patented, I was in a hurry and grabbing a quote from memory that doesn't apply. Replace the original "patented" with "copyrighted" and reread. If the codebase started out containing copyrighted code which was then removed and replaced during the course of development, or when someone realized the code violates copyright (or the original copyright holder noticed and complained), the question is does the new body of code which no longer includes the original code constitute a derivative work subject to the original copyright? If so, then there is potentially a lot of code out there that could be a target for copyright litigation, if it can be shown that it has been touched by someone else's copyrighted code at some earlier time. This makes correcting copyright violations by removing the copyrighted material rather difficult, given that the only option left seems to be a clean-room rewrite from scratch.

Re:Backing Bruce's Copyright

[ld a,b]

By that logic Wine is copyright Microsoft, BSD is copyright AT&T and Linux is copyright Tanebaum. None of GNU is possibly free because it all is based on pre-existing software *and* all original developers had seen AT&T code.
Derivative work is work including other people's copyrighted work else you can already dump your GPL and start torrenting Windows 7 like everyone else.

Re:Backing Bruce's Copyright

[bug1]

Anderson is claiming complete Copyright

Is he, where does he say that ?

Re:Backing Bruce's Copyright

[martin-boundary]

Personally, I think those questions are tricky and it depends a lot on what the lawyers would come up with case by case. Copyright isn't just about what's physically written, for example sometimes fictional characters are protected by copyright, so if you wanted to write a new James Bond or Harry Potter novel from scratch without authorization you would probably lose in court.

To play it safe, I use two rules: if I'm editing a file which has a copyright claim on it, then I assume my edits are derivative. If someone offers me their code edits for one of my GPL projects, I ask them for a copyright assignment.

This still leaves a lot of options. For example, if I really wanted to keep my code in someone else's project, I would make sure to put all my functions in a separate file with my own explicit copyright notice and their files would only contain a few simple function calls to which I would make no claim. If someone didn't want to assign their copyright to me in my project, I would create a subdirectory with a patch file that's clearly marked to belong to them.

Re:Backing Bruce's Copyright

[Lost Race]

Obviously you can't prove a negative,

Obviously?

Re:Backing Bruce's Copyright

[stilldead]

Your "Star Wars" analogy can only hold true if the TM "Star Wars" is no longer used. I don't think we've gained any ground.

If I derive my work from someone elses but continue to use the same name they gave to it then I would think that at least some of it's copyright would remain with the founder. I am fairly sure that incremental change would be obvious and to say it isn't a derivative would be seen as a pile of crap. If on the other hand I look at someone elses GPL code and then write something completely new that is named something different and GPL it then it would belong to me.

On the AT&T and UC issue I would like to point the name change.

Re:Backing Bruce's Copyright

[Bruce Perens]

Your ignoring the issue of derivative works. The current Busybox is not a clean-room re-engineering. It's an unbroken progression from my original code base. Thus, it's derivative.

Re:Backing Bruce's Copyright

[ComputerSlicer23]

Ironically, you have conflated two different IP concepts, and you have the rebuttal in your first sentence. If Bruce owns the Trademark for the name "BusyBox", that is a whole different kettle of fish, and your analysis would be pretty solid. I seriously doubt he has any copyright claim on the term "BusyBox". I don't know what the licensing terms were between the USL and anybody else on the usage of the term "UNIX", but I suspect BSD Unix vs. AT&T UNIX is all about the contractual terms, for which the GPL has no analog. Look how carefully the Mozilla Foundation uses trademark law to protect their brand, but they fully open the source. Again, barring a Trademark being involved, I think you're incorrect.

Kirby

Re:Backing Bruce's Copyright

[Diesel Dave]

In bulk reply:

1) There are two things here: Copyright and License. Bruce created a work. He holds copyright. He published that worked under a license. That license is the GPL. I had privilege to use, modify, and redistribute that work according to the license. The license requires that I respect Bruce's copyright and redistribute derivatives under that same license. I own copyright to the parts I have authored. This goes so forth and so on for each person. IMO the original author never loses copyright claim. Without question the original author remains the primary license grantor.

2) Violating the GPL means violating the terms of the license. According to the GPL if you violate these terms, you loose your privilege the work completely .

3) Before meaninglessly rambling actually read the GPL.

4) Before meaninglessly rambling actually read the courts documents. Anderson claims complete copyright here.

5) I would argue that from my knowledge Anderson did not hold the copyright for many of the code contributions he made into busybox (his employer did) and further more as Anderson is not respecting the terms of the original copyright and license term of the original author (Bruce) and authors before him (Me) he is in violation of Section 1 GPLv2, and has lost his his privileges to the software according to Section 4 GPLv2. In this case Anderson lacks standing to bring suit and he himself is open to an action.

6) One must wonder why the SFLC is working with Anderson when they have been aware that both Bruce and myself have more senior claims to the original work without the 'issues' Anderson has. As Bruce has written we've basically been snubbed by them.

7) I feel I speak for Bruce here in saying the most important issue for us is to have our interests be respected and to be a party to any terms of how the license is enforced. I would be content if it was ultimately left to Bruce because he is original author and respect that. I personally never made a penny from BusyBox unlike Anderson who's full time job paid him to work on BusyBox (and other work I created). When I start to read about 'undisclosed settlement amounts' and considering the full picture, it leaves a very bad taste not knowing exactly what is taking place here. I'm not allowed to know. Bruce is not allowed to know. That's not acceptable.

Re:Backing Bruce's Copyright

[Chandon Seldon]

Have you, perchance, heard of BSD Unix?

I wouldn't argue too loudly that it's entirely impossible to code your way out of copyright liability for being a derivative work.

Re:Backing Bruce's Copyright

[bug1]

Compilation copyright is a somewhat ridiculous concept that has gained popularity recently. It's akin to saying that you own the copyright to the particular selection of packages and programs on a particular Linux distro or install CD, for instance.

Its valid copyright law.

So if you have have a collective (or compilation if you want to call it that) copyright on a selection of separately licensed copyrighted works, someone can take your collection and add, remove, or modify something (say, add there logo) and it becomes a seperate collection not covered by the original collective copyright.

Derivative works doent effect collective copyright, its a different type of copyright to copyrighted "works".

Re:Backing Bruce's Copyright

[scradock]

Anderson is claiming complete Copyright and that is simply an impossibility. As far as I am concerned, this claim is a GPL violation in and of itself.

This is exactly the most disturbing issue to me here. Being able to re-write GPL code and then claim sole copyright on that new code would completely invalidate the entire concept of derivative work on which the GPL and every other software license is based.

You mean like completely re-writing UNIX and calling the result something else, therefore not derivative?

Re:Backing Bruce's Copyright

[Bruce Perens]

The situation with BSD UNIX could not recur today. The key factor was that they had not put the proper copyright notice on their code, and at that time they had to do that or they didn't have a copyright. Today the law is different and you have a copyright the moment you set pen to paper. There was also the issue that USG had been caught with dirty hands infringing upon BSD code.

Re:Backing Bruce's Copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if every line of code Bruce or myself wrote were replaced, it was done so on his and subsequently my license terms which are the GPL. My privileges and Anderson's privileges (if any ?) to alter and redistribute Bruce's work are based on those license terms derived from Bruce's initial publication and you can not simply 'code them away' unless you start from scratch.

What about USL v. BSDi? The Berkeley CSRG augmented UNIX and then later replaced all of AT&T's code with BSD licensed code. Granted the case was settled out of court, but the prevailing judge expressed doubt in USL's claims.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USL_v._BSDi

Re:Backing Bruce's Copyright

[micheas]

Clean-room engineering is a legal strategy to make your copyright easier to defend, and gives you a better chance at prevailing in litigation that is employed when you are fairly sure you are going to be sued.

Derivative works are a woolly gray are that is subject to all the rules of 1 + 1 = N

(of course N may be 2, 1, 0, in the range between 0-1, 3, 11, and probably a few other mathematically correct answers I am not remembering at the moment, depending on the context)

Your clean room implementation can still lose a lawsuit declaring it a derivative work, and you can have a non-clean room implementation found to be non-infringing.

Or here be dragons.

Re:Backing Bruce's Copyright

[micheas]

A minor correction a derivative work as defined by US copyright law.

That is the big problem. Nobody can tell you exactly where that line is, a good copyright attorney can tell you a bunch of different outcomes based on your facts.

I asked thee attorneys about a specific GPL issue in 2005 and got around a dozen different answers (seven of them from one attorney).

The only thing I got out of it is, make sure that the otherside is aware that they are stepping into legal hell and that you will settle if they call off the dogs. The dollar amounts are insane. See all the RIAA suits for evidence of that.

Re:Backing Bruce's Copyright

[micheas]

As I posted to Bruce, you probably have standing to see the undisclosed settlement.

You probably need the consent of all parties, but I expect a copyright attorney could make that happen for you. in short order, but I suspect you and Bruce need to go through the courts to see it.

"What do you call a thousand lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?"

"A good start."

"I used to be offended by layers jokes, now I see them as simple truths." -- Garfield, War of the Roses

Re:Backing Bruce's Copyright

[SoTerrified]

The car was replaced, like the Ship of Theseus.

Thank you! I was wondering if anyone would recognize the "Car of Theseus". I do find it quite amusing how people think these are new concepts, when in fact they've been debated by ancient Greek philosophers. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus

Re:OT: Can someone verify BP's favicon?

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

I don't see any favicon - perhaps a browser bug where it's keeping the favicon of the previously opened tab?

What's your point Bruce?

[gr8_phk]

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?

Re:What's your point Bruce?

[Bruce Perens]

I'd only give a waiver in specific cases. I would do this to 1) reassure my present and potential consulting customers and 2) offer assistance to companies that want to come into compliance, because that's what Free Software folks really want.

I want to be properly represented as a person with a copyright interest in the program, and I want the folks who assert lawsuit on others to comply in regard to my rights as they would have others comply with theirs. I doubt that legal action will be necessary to effect this change.

Re:What's your point Bruce?

[gr8_phk]

I want to be properly represented as a person with a copyright interest in the program, and I want the folks who assert lawsuit on others to comply in regard to my rights as they would have others comply with theirs. I doubt that legal action will be necessary to effect this change.

Putting up a public blog complaining that you're not represented doesn't seem like a very nice way to go about it. How you handle such matters will reflect on you and your business. OTOH if business is slow, any PR will do in a pinch I guess.

Re:What's your point Bruce?

[Bruce Perens]

One responds to publicity with publicity. SFLC made a point of publicizing the suit.

Re:What's your point Bruce?

[rtfa-troll]

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...

Re:What's your point Bruce?

[blueskies]

These people only listen to publicity. Especially if the publicity pushes more people way from the GPL.

Re:What's your point Bruce?

[rtfa-troll]

These people only listen to publicity.

Which people? Bruce? The Busy Box developers? The SFLC?

Re:OT: Can someone verify BP's favicon?

[clone53421]

The favicon doesn’t have to be in the source code. If none is specified, /favicon.ico is assumed. If that doesn’t exist, the default page icon is used.

The existing but zero-length favicon is what was screwing up Chrome.

They can't sue on behalf of all contributors

[tokul]

I have released a statement on the past and current Busybox lawsuits, which do not represent my interest."

If software licensed under GPL does not have central authority, which requires assignment of copyright to it, SFLC has no other option but to support software writers who are wiling to sue.

Although they can't claim that they own all code.

SFLC operates on US and this is one of a few cases where they can support people who's license terms are violated. It gives SFLC some publicity, but it does not help others who ask for help and learn that they have to do everything themselves.

Why is "majority" important?

[SLi]

This is an aspect in at least FSF's reasoning when claiming they need to have copyrights assigned to them that I've never been able to understand.

Why the assertion that you need to be a major copyright holder or get permission from everyone to be able to enforce your copyright? That just doesn't seem to be the case to me, but then IANAL (but I do consider myself knowledgeable on this subject). It seems to me that you can enforce your copyright in a court, no matter how minor your contribution, as long as it is complex enough to be considered a work.

Re:Drama, drama.

[Bruce Perens]

Then step right up, the solution to our problems has finally arrived!... several years ago.

You might find Jacobsen v. Katzer educational. Jacobsen was using the Artistic License 1.0, and this did not protect him from Katzer.

Re:What's your point gr8_phk?

[c0d3g33k]

The following (from the original article) doesn't seem very nice either. While following the Golden Rule is good practice, "treat others with all the respect they have treated you" is sometimes warranted. Calling people out in public, particularly when "handling such matters" in private hasn't worked [speculation on my part], is a perfectly fine way to handle people that don't respect others in their community, in my opinion.

Mr. Andersen, his past employers and Mr. Landley appear to have removed some of the copyright statements of other Busybox developers, and appear to have altered license statements, in apparent violation of various laws. Mr. Landley once claimed that all of my contribution had been completely removed from the Busybox program, using a misinterpretation of Judge Walker's methods for identifying non-literal copying to justify his claim. As far as I'm aware, he was incorrect.

Re:What's your point gr8_phk?

[Bruce Perens]

You don't believe I've never communicated with these folks, do you? I did. And learned very quickly that it was the wrong approach where Mr. Landley was involved.

Re:Drama, drama.

[brkello]

Actually, I like the drama. I find it somewhat amusing. It is like Gossip Girl, except for people who are even nerdier than I am!

GPL != ClusterFuck

[Bryan Ischo]

BSD is fine for a company like Google who makes so much money on the platform that the code runs on (both directly, and indirectly by further cementing the Google "brand") that it matters little to them that they give the source code away.

I can assure you that if you are an individual developer, your interests will be MUCH better served by releasing your code under GPL (NOT LGPL). If you release under BSD, you will get nothing of value back from anybody (except possibly some changes released back to you if whoever wrote them "feels like it"). If you release under GPL (NOT LGPL) you will get bug fixes and improvements because anyone who makes bug fixes or improvements, and intends to distribute them, must give them back to you. And you will also get money if your code is worthwhile enough, from companies who want to use your code to save them their own development time and money, and who will be happy to accept the code under a proprietary license from you in return for money.

I played around and made a software library with a fairly specific purpose that I released under GPL. I didn't intend to make money off of it; it was to be part of a larger project that I haven't (yet) completed (and is currently on hold as I've lost interest, but I intend to get back to it ... eventually). I ended up making $6,000 so far from companies who wanted to use the code in their own products rather than re-developing it in-house. It's not a huge sum, but it sure is nice to get money instead of getting nothing, which is what I would have gotten if I had released under BSD.

Is it against the "sprit" of GPL to issue a separate closed source license for the library for money? I don't think so. Only the author of the software in question has any say whatsoever over what is right and what is wrong with respect licensing that software; no one else's opinion is even remotely relevent. And GPL is a great tool if you want to give your code away for others to use but want to be rewarded if anyone finds it useful.

The BSD license is a great license if you are a company like Google for whom the value of the platform is worth more than the value of the code used to make it. But if you are an individual developer, it's no different really than releasing to the public domain, for which you should expect to get, and will get, nothing in return for your efforts.

Re:GPL != ClusterFuck

[maxume]

Did you get copyright assignments from all contributors? Or perhaps you wrote the entirety of the code, but it isn't just a matter of picking a license, if you want to be able to sell under a different license, getting contributions under the GPL isn't enough.

Re:GPL != ClusterFuck

[Dragonslicer]

If you release under GPL (NOT LGPL) you will get bug fixes and improvements because anyone who makes bug fixes or improvements, and intends to distribute them, must give them back to you.

I don't think that's necessarily true. If I remember correctly, the GPL only requires making the source code available to those that you distribute the software to. The GPL doesn't require making source code available to the general public. Of course, someone that's distributing modified GPL software can't stop one of their customers from sending the source code to you, but you can't just demand the modified source code.

Re:GPL != ClusterFuck

[Bryan Ischo]

I was the sole author, so that wasn't an issue. This is why I tried to preface my statements by saying that they applied to individual developers; if you are part of a group, then you will have to get agreement from everyone for this kind of licensing, and that is alot harder.

You bring up a good point though. I have had the odd bug fix submitted back to me. But I have not taken patches directly. I have instead examined them to understand the bug and then did my own fix. This is so that I can retain sole copyright on the code, so that I don't have to worry about the issue you mentioned. Now if someone ever made significant contributions to the library, I'd have to consider whether to take them and share copyright, or refuse to take them and instead require that other someone to fork the project to include their modifications.

It is a pragmatic matter; I estimated that I spent about 120 hours of my own time to produce the library (actually it took somewhat longer, but I tried to condense it down to the minimum number of hours that it would have taken had I been perfectly focused, perfectly productive, and made little or no mistakes for the entire time), and that is the value that I use when negotiating licensing fees for the library. If someone else comes along and spends 30 minutes to find and fix a bug, should I give up my ability to freely license my 120 hours of effort for that fix? Thus far I have decided no. That being said, I have often thought that I ought to send some money to those few individuals who have discovered bugs and reported them to me, since I did benefit financially from their efforts ...

Re:GPL != ClusterFuck

[Bryan Ischo]

That is a good point. In practice, however, I find that most people will send you their improvements/fixes; it is not hard to do so and most people enjoy contributing back. If it was a company producing a product based on your project, however, there is probably a higher likelihood that they wouldn't bother, and that you might have to even buy one of their products (assuming you even knew they were selling them) to get the source.

Re:GPL != ClusterFuck

[Bryan Ischo]

Yeah sorry, obviously I overgeneralized because not everyone wants the same things; I was assuming that a developer would want to get back what they could when and if they could, but if you truly don't care, then you could use BSD. Although, in that situation, you might want to just release into the public domain, which makes it even easier for others to use your code.

That being said, I don't understand what logical reason someone would have for wanting to give away the fruits of their efforts without at least requiring that those who take them give back if they make improvements or additions. The GPL is a way to share only with people who will either share back with you, or will pay you (for another license). Why do you want to share with people who are going to take your code and incorporate it in their own product which they sell for a profit that they won't share with you? Seriously, what is the upside for you?

I can think of only two reasons: 1) too lazy to want to deal with licensing issues, especially if it ever came to actually having to enforce a license, so just wanting to release under a license that pretty much guarantees that you'd never have anything to dispute anyway, or 2) the ego stroke of thinking that you're such a great person for giving your stuff away for free to anyone who wants it, under the belief that releasing it without restriction is so much more manganamous that it makes the act of giving it away that much more generous? Something along the lines of "I'm such a great person, look, I'm giving my stuff away for free to anyone who wants it, and I'm not even going to worry about someone making a profit off of my work! I'm just so generous, *yay me*!!!"?

Re:GPL != ClusterFuck

[maxume]

I'm always fascinated by the "I didn't use the code, just the ideas" attitude (This may be a caricature of your true attitude, but I don't mean to accuse or quibble, just to focus the discussion), I haven't studied it much, but I'm not sure it would be a very useful legal defense (and I've seen people porting drivers from Linux to BSD use it, not just people speaking of things that are so small they might not even be copyrightable (I can't imagine a sane court applying copyright to a fix for an off by one error or whatever)).

Re:GPL != ClusterFuck

[Bryan Ischo]

True, but as with everything legal (in my very limited understanding), it's all about what leverage you feel you have as a result of your actions. The larger the value of the code base in question, the more significant the risk of "taking ideas instead of code", because you are risking more should you end up losing a lawsuit from someone whose ideas you used. Correspondingly, how much time and effort is a person who has contributed a very small amount of time to sending a patch going to invest in suing you for the $50 you *might* owe them, depending on whether or not you actually are obligated to give them anything at all? When it comes to legal matters, the more money involved, the sharper the distinctions become, because people are more motivated to slice things as finely as they can to get the maximum allowed under law. When the sums are so meager, the legal truth is pretty much whatever you want it to be, because nobody will bother to challenge you.

All that being said, I truly believe that I haven't done anything legally or morally wrong by taking ideas instead of code, so I'm not worried about it, even given that nobody would bother to sue me over this because the amount of money involved is so small. However, I'm a reasonably generous person, and I probably ought to look up the old emails of those people who contributed a fix, and paypal them $20 each ...

Re:GPL != ClusterFuck

[maxume]

Sure, for small amounts of code, the biggest risk run is that of being rude, I guess the part that fascinates me the most is that there are people who do not even realize the behavior might be contentious.

Just to be clear

[Anonymous Coward]

Some people here may find this story obscure, or hard to understand. Let me help out.

Busybox is a collection of tools for downloading and indexing pornographic data. Bruce Perens is the cousin of Jimbo Wales and got his start back when Wikipedia was supposed to be a porn repository.

Re:Just to be clear

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to correct a few things in that statement.

First of all, Perens was involved in the early wiki venture, but was also at the same time a big advocate of open source in general. In particular he has a long running feud with RMS regarding credit for who wrote the original GPL.

Second, Perens is not the cousin, but the brother-in-law of Wales.

The name Busybox should make it obvious that it is a porn related collection of apps. Perens did work quite a bit in the 1-900 phone call porn business before the internet.

Perens has a BA in library science from the Stevens Institute of Technology in New Jersey. The library school later became a "school of information science", giving Perens the idea that he should learns something about IT. After a series of courses at the University of Phonix in microsoft office, he was able to leave his 1-900 job to join Wales.

Re:Just to be clear

[XDirtypunkX]

If you are not Bruce Perens or one of his close friends or immediate family, then that's some A-grade stalking right there

Re:Just to be clear

[XDirtypunkX]

And if you are Bruce Perens, it's creepy to talk about yourself in the 3rd person.

Re:What's your point gr8_phk?

[c0d3g33k]

"handling such matters" in private hasn't worked [speculation on my part]

Thanks Bruce, you just confirmed below that my speculation wasn't too far off the mark.

Re:What's your point gr8_phk?

[c0d3g33k]

Can't tell whether you were replying to me or gr8_phk, but I meant to imply you did try communicate with these folks and it failed, so bringing the matter to the attention of the community was warranted. Apologies if in my haste I wasn't clear.

Re:Who claimed sole copyright?

[julesh]

Unless you can say (in any more detail than Bruce's assignment TO HIMSELF of copyright of other people's work in BusyBox (though again, this is merely BY INFERENCE, not specific statement)) that the proseution says Anderson is claiming sole copyright, how can you be disturbed by something that isn't going on?

In TFA, Bruce claims Anderson has registered the copyright in a particular version of busybox without mentioning in the registration that some of the copyright is held by other preceding authors. This is, at the very least, likely to mislead the courts into thinking Anderson is the sole copyright holder, even if it is not actually intended to give that impression.

Re:Drama, drama.

[maxume]

Do you find significant similarities between that situation and the one you find yourself in?

I used Eric Anderson in 2000 to consult on Busybox

[cellurl]

In my mind, Eric was the inventor. I paid him in 2000 to add some uClinux / Busybox code to the Coldfire project for my Blabbermouth product at airlib.com.
I would probe the uClinux guys, Lineo, Greg Ungerer, Phil Wilshire...

Sometimes its the guy who "ran with it" who assumes ownership....
After the fact, that is tough to swallow. And the Busybox name and concept is genius whoever did it.
Merry Christmas

New business model

[QuebecNerd]

While I completely agree with OS, the GPL and its enforcement. The question that I ask myself is what impact those lawsuits will have on the OpenSource model.

Will patent trolls become OS Trolls and will OpenSource become Open 'sue us'?

This may be the rise of a new business model...

Re:New business model

[lfaraone]

While I completely agree with OS, the GPL and its enforcement. The question that I ask myself is what impact those lawsuits will have on the OpenSource model.

Will patent trolls become OS Trolls and will OpenSource become Open 'sue us'?

This may be the rise of a new business model...

You're missing the part about how you have to actually *steal code* from a project in order to violate their copyright, whereas a patent violation can be thought up independently without knowledge of the filing. GPL code is not code you can use in any way you see fit, it's code that you can use provided you comply with the license terms.

Re:New business model

[gujo-odori]

How do you steal GPL-licensed code? By using it in a proprietary product and not releasing the source code to your version.

Who is it being stolen from? All the people who would have access to it had you complied with the license.

It is true that copyright infringement is not usually theft (but there is a case for it being theft when the infringer is selling the infringed item), since the usual type of infringer (a P2P downloader) would not have bought the product anyway, and the copyright holder is not deprived of the use of the infringed material (the usual definition of theft does require someone to be deprived of property). However, when someone infringes GPLed code, they are in fact depriving someone of the use of that code. Not the original author, but those who would, if the license were followed, potentially use that code. Thus, unlike copyrighted software, etc., distributed under a proprietary license which forbids redistribution, infringing copyrighted code distributed under the GPL is in fact theft.

Re:Drama, drama.

[Anonymous Coward]

Then step right up, the solution to our problems has finally arrived!... several years ago.

You might find Jacobsen v. Katzer educational. Jacobsen was using the Artistic License 1.0, and this did not protect him from Katzer.

In what way would you expect the Artistic License to protect Jacobsen that wasn't the case? There is no license you can use that will magically protect you from being sued. AFAIK the court ultimately ruled in favor of his copyright infringement claims, so what more do you want? Anyway, none of this has anything to do with the point, which is that all this GPL drama, while good for the authors who obviously and rightly want the conditions of the distribution of their software adhered to, is a waste of time and really doesn't help the free/open source movement (beyond apparently providing some small entertainment to some?).

Re:What's your point gr8_phk?

[Bruce Perens]

No problem.

Royale With Schrodingers Cat

[Ilan Volow]

The commercial implications of the GPL actually resemble a drunken menage a trois between thought experiment, a Rube Goldberg machine, and Pulp Fiction's explanation of Amsterdam's marijuana laws.

Re:OT: Can someone verify BP's favicon?

[wjsteele]

I see it as the head of a little lizzard. Must be something with your browser. Try upgrading it to IE8. (Which is what I am using!) :-)

Bill

Re:Miserable Fuck

[palegray.net]

Actually, he goe $6K in licensing fees for his library, so he's probably pretty happy.

Let’s not forget the misunderstandings of th

[vosester]

The proprietary world must be laughing there arse's off at this, If there is this much misunderstand of the GPL “In House”, So too speak. How the hell do you expect companies who are still in the mindset of “License it and Forget it” to follow along.

I think most of the violations are just misunderstanding of the GPL on the companies part, And if we go at them to aggressively them might not use GPL software next time.

Easy retroactive solution

[Anonymous Coward]

And perhaps a warning to developers anywhere that want to someday make money off of their products:

*Don't use the GPL* or anything remotely related.

Why not BSD or Mozilla it?

[xquark]

Bruce, why not change the license to something more agreeable with the general public. At least that way, you'd help keep the honest guys honest.... and also make using and modifying busybox related stuff all that more easier and inviting.

Re:What's your point gr8_phk?

[gavron]

Bruce is a pioneer in the FOSS world, and has done great things.

Nothing he's said and done qualifies as "devolving."

He's obviously worked HARD to avoid being a troll.

Have respect for your betters, or get better schooling.

E

So write another one.

[Animats]

I'm surprised that someone hasn't written something like BusyBox starting from FreeBSD's utilities. Busybox is just "cat", "echo", "grep", etc. all in one executable with some common code merged. It's not like it's a significant original work. FreeBSD has all those components with the BSD license.

Re:So write another one.

[evilviper]

And more importantly, the BSD versions are already substantially smaller than their GNU/GPL counterparts.

Re:So write another one.

[Just Some Guy]

I'm surprised that someone hasn't written something like BusyBox starting from FreeBSD's utilities.

They have. Go to a FreeBSD console and run ls -i /rescue. There are 133 binaries in that directory on my desktop, each being a hardlink to the same statically linked file, with behavior depending on the value of argv[0] when the program is run. The idea is to include all the programs you might need to repair a FreeBSD system in single-user without having even /usr mounted. See the man page for crunchgen(1) for more details.

Re:Finally

[SpacePunk]

I'm going to be be watching this with a big tub of popcorn, and a keg of beer beside me. It promises a huge amount of entertainment.

What gets me, and what will make this so amusing is that anybody that contributes any amount of code to a project can in essence hijack the whole copyright violation award leaving the other copyright holders with nothing. An entity later sued by another holder on that project can just point to the previous lawsuit and claim they already paid the damages for violation. The courts will just see it as a copyright violation settled, and stamp the whole shebang 'done'.

 

Re:license applied to code, but owned by coder

[larry bagina]

There are hundreds (maybe thousands) of people who have contributed code to Linux. Each contributor retained the copyright to their code. Relicensing linux under another license would require the agreement of *every* contributor. When sourceforge went from GPL to closed source, they had to get a release from all contributors and strip out some code from people who told them to fuck off. Some projects (FSF, for example) require contributors to assign the copyright, so they can relicense however they want.

Microsft loves GPL Lawsuits

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft will love this!
This thread gives them a lot of evidence about why GPL should never be used.

Re:Microsft loves GPL Lawsuits

[Lord Maud'Dib]

Or just closed source and restrict everyone's freedoms. Idiot.

Re:Microsft loves GPL Lawsuits

[Engeekneer]

I wouldn't say that this is any proof that GPL shouldn't be used. Yes, in long running bigger projects, who holds the code copyright can of course become an issue, but this also means that contributions to the code muse be respected. This is actually more acout copyright than license. There would be the same problems in a hypothetical multi-developer closed source code. It would just be harder to verify if the source and the contributions aren't available. It's just that closed source code is usually run by companies, which own the copyright of the code their coders produce.

Re:license applied to code, but owned by coder

[HarrySquatter]

I always thought that Linus could at any time release Linux 3.0 under a different license... but doesn't do this because he is a good guy and would have trouble finding other coders to further support the project after that.

You thought wrong. Unless Linus had all contributors to the kernel assign their copyrights to him he can't relicense it at his own whim and would have to have agreement with all other copyright holders.

Re:license applied to code, but owned by coder

[Bruce Perens]

In the U.S. the license is the choice of the copyright holder. There are many on Linux. And thus to change the license on Linux, you have to ask all of those copyright holders, as best as you are able to reach them, including through public notices. Then, you have to remove the work of those who object. And then you can relicense.

This is so painful that there would have to be a very good reason. Like GPL2 becoming seriously less enforcible.

Linux Driver Code

[GNUPublicLicense]

Hu... more than busybox... we want optimal Linux driver code

Thanks for participating here Bruce

[1_brown_mouse]

I appreciate the time and effort you gave to explain your position.  And the time and effort of those here to get more information and understanding.

While you are not specifically represented in the case, I do hope it is successful in getting companies to follow the GPL.

BusyBox is a great asset to the Linux community.  Thank you for sharing it.

/Yes, I know Thanksgiving was last month.
//I procrastinate a little.  That is why this post is wayyyyyy down here at the bottom.
///Are slashies OK here too?

Re:Drama, drama.

[rahvin112]

Bruce is the original author of BusyBox, all code is a derivative of his original work even if every line of code he wrote is gone (which AFAIK it isn't). The only way andersen could own the entire copyright is if he clean room reverse engineered all the code Bruce wrote, otherwise it's all a derivative and ultimately is controlled by Bruce's original copyright grant. SFLC appears to be making all the settlements closed and refusing to provide Bruce and Dave the terms. There are monetary awards involved that may be in excess of the actual costs. In addition it appears Bruce's consulting business was harmed by this action which was taken independently of him and Dave. Andersen has claimed in court documents that he owns the entire code base which as I said without "clean" reverse engineering is patently false. Bruce and Dave have a legitimate claim here, SFLC should be talking to them directly and trying to solve this otherwise it appears that they aren't respecting the copyright, something they claim to trying to enforce.

Bruce was right to make this public IMO, if only to reduce the damage to his own business as a result of a suit taken on code he originated, which spooks clients BTW. I will personally lose a LOT of respect for SFLC if they don't negotiate a solution to Bruce and Dave's concerns (although it appears Dave will be happy if Bruce is happy so maybe they only need to talk to Bruce). It's entirely disingenuous of them to negotiate settlements without Bruce being a party or at least aware of the terms as he originated the entire program and holds the original copyright grant from which the entire program derives.