Slashdot Mirror
How Far Should GPL Enforcement Go?
itwbennett writes "The debate over enforcement of the GPL flared up again this week when Red Hat kernel developer Matthew Garrett wrote in a blog post that Sony is looking to rewrite BusyBox to sidestep the GPL. Which is a perfectly legal undertaking. But it raises the question: 'Is there social pressure within the Linux kernel community to not undertake GPL compliance action?' writes blogger Brian Proffitt. 'This may not be nefarious: maybe people just would rather not bother with enforcing compliance. Better, they may argue, to just let the violation go and get on with developing better code.'"
By hanging
I think GPL enforcement sould go just as far as everyone else. It should go as far as copyright law allows and as far as the copyright lobby goes.
C|N>K
Slashdot on piracy: "Abolish all copyrights! Copying isn't theft! Everyone is entitled to everything!"
Slashdot on the GPL: "Gee whiz, the GPL copyright license protects this code. Down with leeching violators! Protect against GPL theft!"
I confess I only skimmed TFA -- this is Slashdot, after all.
But I'm not sure I understand the argument that is being made here. If Sony is really trying to "rewrite Busybox" -- which makes it sound like they're going to look at the Busybox code and write a new version that does the same thing in a different way -- then surely that's a derivative work of Busybox and it's a copyright violation.
If, on the other hand, Sony is planning to write a Busybox replacement from scratch -- what's wrong with that? Are companies not entitled to write code? How is that "violating licenses with impunity"?
If Sony is planning to do a clean-room re-engineering of Busybox -- what's wrong with that? Isn't that essentially what Linux kernel developers have done for all kinds of devices? Again, how is that "violating licenses with impunity"?
Sony wants to not use GPL-licensed code in its proprietary products. What could be more clear? Would you rather they used it without complying with the license?
Breakfast served all day!
If this was a story about software piracy or MP3/movie downloads then the answer would of course be that copyright is wrong and should be removed entirely. But since its about the GPL, I'm guessing we're pro copyright and it should be enforced to the fullest extent of the law.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
corporate death penalty
What exactly does Sony legitimately rewriting busybox have to do with GPL enforcement?
Yeah, they're rewriting it to sidestep the GPL, but so what? That's their prerogative.
The owners of the copyrighted code are the ones who have a stake in enforcing the GPL for their code. If they don't care enough to enforce it, that's their business and completely unrelated IMO to what Sony is doing.
Maybe the argument is that if so many people don't care – in general – to not enforce the GPL for their code, that what, interest is waning in the GPL in general?
I mean, if that's really the case, then why should Sony even bother to rewrite, when they can just violate, knowing that nobody cares enough to enforce. No doubt their lawyers think that's a slippery slope, because we don't know if tomorrow everyone will change their mind.
It seems to me as though this is less about BusyBox per se, and more about enabling companies to steal code from other GPL'd projects without having to worry about the threat of the BusyBox folks calling them out on their wrongdoing.
Forgive me if I can't think of any word other than "scum" at the moment.
You can spend months trying to rewrite busybox, or you can just put the source code on your web site. It's not that hard. In fact, Sony already do it. GPL Compliance: put the source on your web site. That's all it takes. It isn't expensive or difficult.
I second this.
"Hi there. Nice GPL copyright-backed code you got there, that you're violating the license on. It would be a shame if you had to pay $375,000 per Copyrighted Work, aka each file in the 50,000 file package. The Choice Is Yours."
Come on guys, if they're going to abuse copyright law, abuse it back, preferably with a big gun case that sets precedent. "No, you don't get to "withdraw your case. You get to pay me X BILLION dollars! Or - your choice - you can go fix it in Congress so that copyright damages are back down to $20 per work, like it should be."
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
I always thought that LGPL was created for this kind of stuff. I guess that if sony contacted busybox authors in a nice manner and if it was all for some good thing (bash-scripted gadgets!), relicencing would be fast&easy option.
BusyBox is just some standard UNIX utilities in one executable. BSD has all the necessary code. The BSD license doesn't require source redistribution. Putting together a BusyBox replacement shouldn't be a big deal.
Sorry, but no. Treat the industry as you want to be treated.
To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
The question should have been: How Far Should Sony Hate Go ?
Why is the GPL preventing Sony from using BusyBox as is ? The source code is already available, so if they feel the burning need to make changes, they can simply post patches on the web. Am I misinterpreting the GPL here ?
Why would rewriting BusyBox be considered cheaper/easier than complying with the GPL ?
-Billco, Fnarg.com
If you can make a program with the same functionality as BusyBox, and you run it on top of the NetBSD kernel instead of Linux, where's the requirement to provide source code?
Self defense is so over-rated....
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
GPL is a fairy tale. the fact that it exists is one thing, enforcing it is a completely different story, but it's a beautiful concept.
Self defense by doing exactly what you criticize is moronic. It's the we need nukes because they have them mentality.
To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
Is that really considered a derivative work just because they can see the source?
Proving an allegation of copying requires proving two elements: first, that the alleged infringer had at one time had access to the older work; and second, that there is a level of similarity between the two. "Access" can be as simple as having heard a song on the radio a decade ago (Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music).
Compaq decided to make lack of access clear when it reverse-engineered the IBM PC BIOS using a "clean room" technique. This involved having one team turn copyrighted code into descriptions of its (unprotected) functionality and a second team turn the descriptions into code, with all communications between the two teams carefully monitored. I've been told it might not be quite necessary to go that far, but in the business world, you'd often rather spend money on engineers than trial lawyers. In such a case, it's best to draw up a plan for "being able to tell IBM to go to hell, and having the federal judge draw them a map for exactly how to go there", as sigwinch put it a decade ago. (Here's such a map.)
For several hundred years, and probably before then, there has been a struggle between individuals who strive for the possibility of social segregation and the perpetuation of (their) wealth, and individuals who strive for, effectively, a vision of communal merging of humankind. The former represented by a collection of mythologies related to social darwinism, self-sufficiency, republicanism, individual property rights and free will, and the latter represented by a collection of mythologies related to equality, communalism, various forms of group or shared property, determinism and removal of all mental barriers that distinguish between groups of people (either on a national/racial or international/global/humankind basis).
Ideologies relating to both of these have been pervasive through the world and there are untold millions who lean in either direction. It's no surprise that you find plenty of people who sympathise either way.
It's also no coincidence that the terminology chosen was specifically "CopyLeft", representing effectively and in principle shared and communal property, as an alternative to "CopyRight", effectively individual, withheld and segregated property.
Consider the fact that if all property, assets and reality was virtual, and we lived in a completely software-engineered world (a la The Matrix), a world governed by GPL v3 / lack of copyrights would be one where all property would be communal. This because the integration and interoperability of software would eventually force through a completely communal state, and because 'private' property could be raided and distributed at will.
GPL v2 is an intermediary step, where communal property is effectively a voluntary or accidental movement.
This is also why there won't ever be a GPL version beyond 3. 3 is the end point. 2 is a philosophical difference. But the goal was obviously always 3, because if you ever develop 3, then it's clear that you have been intending to do so from the very beginning.
This is also why GPL enforcement is a contentious issue. There is a perception effectively of power balance, where "power creates counterpower". The more the FSF seeks to take strong action against GPL v3 violators, the more people _who are not philosophically completely sold on the idea of communal property_ will form a counter-power and avoid GPL v3. GPL v3 has seen limited uptake, most likely for this reason, because people instinctively avoid what is effectively a viral project to communalise all digital architecture. To pursue the highest profile cases would effectively force a philosophical end game at a legal and political level, which they most likely don't see as productive at this point.
Sorry, but no. Treat the industry as you want to be treated.
Ya know, the golden rule is a nice lesson we learned in grade school, but in the real world, if you treat others as you'd like to be treated, you're either treating them like dirt, or you're treating them well, and they walk all over you. It would work if everyone wasn't a sociopath and actually did treat people how they wanted to be treated, but there are too many people willing to take advantage.
All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
The implication is clearly that we (as a community) shouldn't discourage people from using OSS code, or they'd start rewriting it to "get around" it.
That's the entire argument for the GPL. Basically, if some simple conditions aren't met, you don't get to take advantage of all the work that's been put into it. The idea being that you'd rather they not use your code at all if they're going to be dicks about it.
Sony, for reasons I don't quite understand but are entirely up to them, seems unhappy about putting the publicly-available-and-not-competitively-relevant source code on their website. More power to them, but the tradeoff is spending a bunch of time rewriting software that already exists and works fine. More power to them.
When I license my code under the GPL, I realize that the odds of its reuse are somewhat smaller. But that's fine, since I'd rather that somebody saving time by building off my work makes their source available (to me, and everybody else). If they don't want to do that, I don't want to save them the trouble of having to write it themselves.
The more interesting story here is that Sony's got it in its head that it'll be cheaper to rewrite Busybox than continue to have links to it. Not sure how they figured it.
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
Go take your medicine. You need it.
DRTFA, but if they are advocating not enforcing the GPL and just developing instead - why don't they just advocate using a BSD derived licence?
In other words, if you have chosen to use GPL for your code, then you must have done so because you want people to abide by those conditions, and so you must want to enforce them.
If you don't, then don't use GPL.
If you selectively enforce GPL, then it just weakens enforcement.
NZ Electronics Enthusiasts: Check out my Trade Me Listings
Once again, Slashdot links to a blog instead of the original source. The linked blog gets its evidence from a wiki page at http://www.elinux.org/Busybox_replacement_project
This page has a Q&A which clearly states that it is not a Sony project:
Q. Tim Bird, the proposer of this project, works for Sony. Is this a Sony project?
A. No. Although Tim is employed by Sony, he spends a portion of his employed time working on behalf of the embedded industry to improve Linux and encourage GPL compliance. As of February 2, 2012, Sony has not endorsed or agreed to support this project. This wiki page is for gathering information and project description information, to present to various companies to solicit support and resources for the project.
Q. Can Tim's creation of this proposal be used to infer anything about Sony's compliance record, future compliance intent, or other business practices?
A. Tim has only recently informed his management about this proposal, and Sony has not yet (as of 2/2/12) agreed to support it. So, "no, not really". Sony has a good compliance record, and has strong compliance policies in place. It has never been contacted by the SFC and has no expectation of being contacted by the SFC about any license violation of GPL software. Tim is doing this as part of his (paid for by Sony) role in the industry to address issues which inhibit the adoption of Linux in consumer electronics.
The argument that is being made in a nutshell:
Busybox copyright is enforced by the SFLC, which sues companies to get them to comply. When negotiating for compliance, they also request that the company in question comply with the GPL2 license on the Linux kernel. Now, for whatever stupid reasons, some companies don't want to release their kernel modifications for Android devices. So they think that by removing Busybox, the SFLC will no longer have a copyright claim that opens them to litigation which results in their releasing their kernel source. This reasoning is flawed, because there is another, much easier way to avoid Busybox litigation: put the source code on your web site. That's all it takes. They could keep their kernel sources, and just put up the Busybox source, and they would achieve the same thing.
The other argument being made by one developer is that enforcement action is pointless, because he hasn't seen any Busybox source opened up from this route that was worth anything. Others disagree, saying there was some useful code, and that it's not just about Busybox - the Busybox enforcement actions have also resulted in kernel drivers being opened up.
So, the "outrage" here is the allegation that Busybox is being rewritten so that companies can violate the copyright of the Linux kernel without being sued by the SFLC.
If I was selling another person's software without permission then I think they would have every right to sue me for every penny I owned.
uhhh...what?
GPL - stuff must remain free for everyone to use, modify and distribute
Typical copyright - stuff must remain mine and everyone has to pay me and agree to be subject to my whims to see or use even part of it
Oversimplification, of course, but the point is that they are not both "nukes", because they aren't the same thing at all, just use a the same legal framework for completely different results.
Proffitt is a financially motivated troll, raking up the mud to get page hits. Please stop posting his blog posts, they don't help improve our lives or our software.
thank you
~.~
I'm a peripheral visionary.
Agreed. "Treat others as you want to be treated." That's a lovely idealistic and academic notion. It's also one that requires everyone in the society to accept. One act of douchbaggery will lead to a cascade failure of this construct.
My folks tried to take this social high-road back in the 70s. They were treated like doormats, until they couldn't take any more and had to defend themselves from the hordes of predatory-types.
Some guy's speculation and Brian Proffitt's anti-Linux propaganda again?
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Self defense by doing exactly what you criticize is moronic. It's the we need nukes because they have them mentality.
What's wrong with that mentality? MAD works and is, in fact, the only thing that does.
Thats an interesting point. If you follow the golden rule you will get hurt by someone who doesn't - and that person won't be hurt at all. On the other hand if you "treat other people as they treat you" at least there is some feedback, some encouragement to follow the rule as well.
Mon chien, il n'a pas du nez. Comment scent-il? TrÃs mauvais!
"In the land of the Golden Rule, the douchbag is king"
All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
Indentured servitude to RMS would be much better.
But alas, it would probably also qualify as cruel and unusual punishment.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
.. Since that is about reimplementation, not copying, but GPL enforcements should be taken as far as it can.
Seriously, if you don't care enough to sue for copyright violation or even to let others do so on your or the communities behalf, then why are you licensing under the GPL to begin with?
I really don't care for arguments that everyone should BSD license their work, the argument is often self-serving and not everyone is ok with others profitting of your work with nothing given in return.
On the other hand, if you dont care about that a permissive license is most definitely the right choice.
If the GPL is stifling development (commercial or not), then it's stifling development, simple as that. If the license is an impediment, then it has failed to encourage development.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
But the really nasty part of all of this is that Toybox's only purpose is to allow the GPL on the kernel to be infringed with impunity, because kernel developers currently aren't cooperating with SFC.
Does anyone want to sell their copyright on existing kernel code? I'd throw you a few bucks to contribute it to SFC.
Bruce Perens.
The golden rule CAN actually work, if you approach life with a tit for tat strategy (benevolent or otherwise). If you are nice until someone shits on you and are then a bastard in return, this is completely compatible with the golden rule a.k.a. "do as you would be done by". If you are nice to others and they are nice to you in return, it all works out. And if you are reasonable, then you would also understand that someone is going to attempt to shaft you if you shaft them first. However, as long as you are nice to someone using a tit for tat strategy then you will never see their vengeful side. So "employ a (benevolent) tit for tat strategy as you would hope others do towards you" is not only nice, it is a very practical way to approach life, consistent with a functioning society that will even self regulate in the absence of a justice system.
You do need to be guarded against those who would feign tit for tat for an extended period of time until they judge the time is ripe for a mortal blow.
If I have seen further it is by stealing the Intellectual Property of giants.
Let's take FreeBSD as an example. FreeBSD and GPL code coexisted a long time just fine, that is until FSF switched gcc to GPLv3. At this point, FreeBSD was stuck with the last gcc and binutils published under GPLv2, and they had no choice but to start looking elsewhere for a replacement (currently transitioning towards clang/llvm). In this case, licensing a central piece of OSS infrastructure exclusively under GPLv3 was quite hostile to non-GPL OSS (!) projects that depends on it and was clearly not nice. On the other hand, enforcing GPL(v3) on closed-source vendors like Sony who never played nice with the OSS world is a perfectly acceptable policy, IMHO. And I'm saying this even though I am a strong advocate of BSD-license licensing: you GPL folks have no reason to bow to those who don't reciprocate in some sense... but you could show more flexibility towards OSS projects by dual-licensing under GPLv2 and GPLv3.
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
"To ignore evil is to become an accomplice to it.": - -- Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.:
I'm posting anonymously because I work at a well known company that uses the linux kernel code (and for political reasons, we'd rather you not know who we are) and even if you knew who we are and you asked, we would not release our kernel modifications to you. It is our opinion (and the lawyers we talked to backed us up) that the Linux kernel is effectively public domain. This is because there have been significant (and obvious) violations of the provisions of the GPL license going on for so long, and without any enforcement by Linus Torvalds or any other kernel developer, that there would clearly be no "damages" arising from existing or future violations.
If you don't bother enforcing your license then you weaken it for everyone else as people will continue to think they can just treat OSS as public domain because, well, they are doing and getting away with it.
If you are not going to enforce your choice of license, then use a license that you will enforce or just release public domain and be done with it.
Reverse engineering is the process of discovering how a system, through analysis allows one to determine how the system functions or operates. Therefore software engineers can analyse busybox code and create a technical specification of the system at a higher level of abstraction. This specification can then be handed over to another group of programmers who can then write code according to the specification written.
Under Sec. 103(f) of the DMCA (17 U.S.C. 1201 (f)) says that if you legally obtain a program that is protected, you are allowed to reverse-engineer and circumvent the protection to achieve interoperability between computer programs. The underlying question is, how protected is the busybox's code is?. In the USA courts have found contractual prohibitions (EULA) to override the copyright law see Bowers v. Baystate Technologies. To what extent cases like this can used is questionable and in Europe, Article 6 of the 1991 EU Computer Programs Directive allows reverse engineering for the purposes of interoperability.
The web site http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise22.html provides further cases that make for interesting reading.
As mentioned in the OP, "just let the violation go and get on with developing better code.'", seems to me the best way to go.
Regards
Slashdotgirl
The more I know, the less I know
You are correct to note that when the summary suggesting that it is Sony rather than a Sony engineer is indeed wrong (although did you actually read the second answer you quote which says that Tim is doing this (the proposal, not necessarily any coding) as part of his role at Sony?)
But when you complain about linking to a blog, you should realise that on the subject of GPL violations by embedded companies that can't perform basic licensing due diligence that Matthew Garrett's blog is one of the best primary sources around.
The "subject" is whether this project serves any legitimate purpose, or is merely an attempt to do an end-run around GPL enforcement activities and allow companies to continue to ship customised linux kernels without having to provide the source.
Both Tim and Rob have commented at length on Matthew's blog on the issue and I did not find their responses compelling.
Matthew has made the following comment which I think sums up the issue nicely, as well as partially answering the question posed in the summary (about GPL enforcement by kernel contributors):
a judge will just rule the damages you're asking for aren't reasonable and reduce them. Judges are kings of their court. We've watched several copyright trolls get slapped by Judges (Righthaven comes to mind). Judges are property holders. They're going to come done on the side of property in almost every case.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Comment removed based on user account deletion
i completely agree... but have no idea who could fund such things
"As part of their request to remedy a busybox GPL violation, the SFC does ask for source code unrelated to busybox"
What are the names of these Busybox using companies that the SFC requested non-GPL code from?
"There are instances where this litigation and the terms requested by the SFC have resulted in companies dropping their embedded Linux projects."
What are the names of these companies?
"It has also caused even compliant companies to re-evaluate their adoption of Linux"
What are the names of these companies, define 're-evaluate`.
ref: Busybox Replacement Project
AccountKiller
If Sony caught some web site distributing one of their artist's songs, it is unlikely they would seek a settlement regarding just that one song. Rather they would want to ensure that the copyrights of all their songs would be respected. It is a bit ironic that someone at Sony seems concerned that SFC might try to enforce the copyright on more than just busybox.
I forget who started it (maybe it was microsoft) but as far as licence enforcement goes, the GPL is something akin to code communism, where everyone must share or everyone must stealthly rip off each other. Everyone is a potential secret police.
BSD licence on the other hand is just one step down from anarchy. It's Capitalism, if you can make a profit with it, do it. You just have to give credit, and you can't sue anyone for using it, nor can you sue the developers for making a crappy product.
All and all, it's better to release GPL if you want MANY DEVELOPERS as possible, regardless of the value of the whole product, so things like the Linux Kernel, Gnome, KDE, etc fit better with GPL licences, because if there were 200 separate forks of it, it would be a pain in the ass to develop for.
If you want as many USERS as possible, you ship with the BSD licence. So end-user "packaged" products that you don't develop on top of, like Open Office, TheGimp, Firefox, Chrome, and many unix utilities like OpenSSH and rSync, are better off as BSD.
There is a fuzzy middle ground, and this is where all the bitchfights show up. Proprietary hardware with OSS software. Part of the reason the hardware is cheap is because they don't develop much in-house software, but at the same time, people can copy their hardware product with impunity if they release all the source code (see the Linksys WRT54G) of the device, but sometimes this is a good thing, as the greater developer community can produce a better product (see Tomato firmware, DDWRT, etc)
In an ideal world, most of this software would simply be licensed as BSD if the software is being shipped as part of an "endpoint" hardware device that the hardware vendor is not going to sub-licence the software to other vendors. GPL is about control, where as BSD is about freedom. If the device is not "endpoint" (endpoint devices being things like PoE Video cameras, and other ethernet or USB connected devices where the device only transmits or receives to a server) then all the necessary code required to rebuild the operating system and package the firmware should be released. These are what I'd call "access point" devices, so Wireless AP's, routers, hard drives which have multiple devices or users should be GPL. Because the devices need to work until the hardware fails, and we know software standards change over time.
GPL - my stuff must remain free for everyone to use, modify and distribute AND all your stuff that has touched my stuff is now part of my stuff and must remain free for everyone to use, modify and distribute.
What is "sidestepping the gpl"? Sony says for some products GPLing is for some reason problematic (which may be even not due to their own decisions), so lets write a free version.
IMHO GPL should be enforced wherever it was intended to apply. If i invest time in something, i want that this happens under my conditions.
...I say take Sony, Disney, Warner, etc to the wall. If they want to continue paying the RIAA to chase us, then we should be able to put it right back on them if they are violating GPL terms on their blu-ray discs and media streaming web sites. I'm not saying they are (but it wouldn't surprise me). What's good for the goose is good for the gander...
I'm sure some GPL violation could be found to justify seizing the .gov domain to make a point.
anyone who thinks 'only 2 lines can screw up someone elses's code' is a ridiculous thing, should go after Microsoft SCO, and leave GNU alone.
No it doesn't. It barely worked in the cold war & probably only because the Soviet Union fell apart first. For a massive example of MAD failing, take a look at the patent lawsuits between Apple/Google/Samsung/Nokia etc.
OK, so maybe I am missing something here. This is busybox, as in the command line program that behaves like a lot of programs depending on ARGV[0], or the name of the symbolic link pointing to it, right? Commands like "ls", and "tar" and "nc" and "telnetd", right?
#1. Why do they need to bother writing a non-GPL version? Isn't calling it via exec() pretty much all you would ever want to do with it anyway? That is allowed under the license, right?
#2. If you rewrote a busybox clone from the ground up, it would resemble Busybox about as much a Linux resembles SCO Unix. This should also be ok. Unless someone has a software patent on reading ARGV[0] and determining what the program should do...
So, I think Sony gets partial credit here. I don't see any reason (other than unwarranted management fears) that they couldn't just use busybox. But, if management is that scared about it, then writing their own replacement from scratch should work out fine.
Unfortunately that type of thinking has no place in our legal system. These crazy laws escalating will only get stopped when you can actually use them on somebody that HAS $20 BILLION dollars. Right now it is a stitation where the large companies all cross license out of court...so the FULL force of law only applies to newbies.
Remember a few years back when Microsoft couldn't buy their way out of an injunction and had to REMOVE a feature from MSOffice... We need MORE of that!
If you're going to release something and don't care whether or not derived works come with source, then why use GPL in the first place? If you don't care, you don't care. If you care, you care. Is it that hard to "know yourself?" ;-)
It makes me wonder if some people are using GPL as a bluff, to trick derivers into releasing their source, even though there would be no consequences for failing to do so.
And that's a clever idea (who really has time for dealing with lawyers?) but if that's your position, then all the more reason you should be loudly rattling your saber, angrily screaming that your Crack Legal Team WILL enforce GPL to the maximum, salt the farmland of violators after raping their daughters and poisoning their wells, bringing violators' heads to you so that their skulls may decorate the pikes which ring your lair. The last thing you want anyone hearing, is that you won't really enforce it, even if it's true.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Thor strike from orbit. Nothing like a terminal velocity steel I-beam buried in the center of the CEO's BMW as it sits in the parking lot to get the point across.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
So it doesn't work, and yet it worked?
If the binary code of the kernel of one of the *BSD systems showed striking similarities to the binary code of Linux, then there would most likely already have been lawsuits between one of the companies selling *BSD support and one of the companies selling Linux support.
Sony is not doing this project the summary was wrong. From the FAQ on the project.
"Q. Tim Bird, the proposer of this project, works for Sony. Is this a Sony project?
A. No. Although Tim is employed by Sony, he spends a portion of his employed time working on behalf of the embedded industry to improve Linux and encourage GPL compliance. As of February 2, 2012, Sony has not endorsed or agreed to support this project. This wiki page is for gathering information and project description information, to present to various companies to solicit support and resources for the project."
It reason is that it seems that the authors of BusyBox are very willing to go after companies and sometimes ask for remedies outside the scope of compliance with the GPL. At least that is what they are claiming.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
... but you could show more flexibility towards OSS projects by dual-licensing under GPLv2 and GPLv3.
I don't really share that concern. The GPL has been the major obstacle in most open source license incompatibilities long before GPLv3 came out. Most people need to look at this fairly complicated reference table in order to figure out the compatibility issues the GPL has with itself, saying nothing of the issues it has with other open source licenses. If GNU really likes the GPLv3, I say let them have it. After all, look what it's given us in just this one case: LLVM! I've appreciated GCC for a long time, but maybe competition within the open source universe isn't so bad.
This author takes full ownership and responsibility for the unpopular opinions outlined above.
I don't see how lawsuits between massive companies, generally all making huge money, proves anything about MAD. It's sorta expected, which is why we have the courts. You may find the system distasteful but that just means that like many nerds, you have a hard time conceiving of a world where your opinions aren't subjectively correct.
I was arguing that if Sony wanted to not have GPL obligations extend to its future products, Sony could switch those products away from the Linux platform in favor of one of the BSDs. Apple did this, building its Mac OS X and iOS platforms around bits and pieces of FreeBSD on top of Mach.
I've been in "the real world" for over five decades, and I still live by the golden rule, and always will.
In short-term interactions, the "nice guy" is often seen as a pushover, and indeed I think I've lost out on getting credit, etc. in circumstances like that.
In long-term (>10 years) interactions, "niceness" (combined with honesty, integrity, and most importantly ability) has *always* paid off.
So it's OK for Free Software proponents to call for developers to duplicate functionality of just about anything as long as it goes under the GPL, just not for Sony to do the same when a BSD license is the result?
The difference seems to be purely ideological but the hypocrisy is obvious.
..so why can't Sony? They're selling a device for which they develop the firmware, meaning they can control the kernel version, module versions, etc etc. Why don't they include their proprietary stuff as a binary blob, the way Google provides Gmail, Talk, etc to users of Cyanogenmod? We're talking user experience type stuff, not device drivers (I guess, could be wrong).
if someone hasn't enforced their copyrights so far, it gets harder to enforce them in the future.
and million dollar fines are gonna irradiate earth how? No, disagree, if hughe companies get their arses whipped in same way they own everyone - will do only good.
I am not quite sure if it would work in all cases. One certain example comes to mind, where it might not have worked. This example I won't mention, for Godwin's sake. But some opponents are just too suicidal to be coerced into non-aggressive behaviour in a MAD setting.
[--- PGP key and more on http://www.root42.de ---]
Don't be silly. Putting stuff under the GPL is the closest thing to abolishing copyright that you (as an individual) can do. It gives out your code in a public domain equivalent and makes sure that nobody can slap their own copyright onto it. It's been described as judo against the copyright system.
No contradiction.
I was wondering how long it would take before someone pointed out the obvious which is that using a BSD is probably the best idea for the platform. After all, if you need to write a board support package in the first place, the fact is, the BSD code base is actually in many ways easier than the Linux code base. I know this from personal experience.
BusyBox itself is just a highly annoying, though extremely compact jumble of the command line utilities. Rewriting BusyBox is just not that big of a task, but there's not real benefit to it since BSD contains pretty much everything BusyBox provides, though in separate and often more manageable files.
I personally would say that if anything, a good reason to rewrite BusyBox should be more about code manageability than licensing. I've worked a little on the BusyBox code and frankly, while it's not nearly as ugly as the crap Stallman writes, it's pretty ugly.
Didn't take long for the usual Sony tricks to start.
(As soon as the moderating Ericsson influence was gone then everything else was lost).
SE were the second biggest AOSP contributor.
I think its fairly certain before long everything will be locked back down again and Sony will do exactly 0 of any use anymore.
Very glad I didn't get a Sony Tablet S (Do have a Sony Ericsson Xperia Play).
MAD is redundant compared to MAnon-D. The former presupposes will to die, the latter the will to live.
People who support MAD usually think as Thomas Hobbes; every man's warre against every man.
Thomas Hobbes presupposed a Newtonian model of man that is wholly incorrect with THE FACTS.
If you want to use the Cold War as a standard of man's "natural state" go right ahead.
Defining Statistics and Social Research
Or in English, turnabout is fair play.
It's not hard to see the problem with "treat others as you wish to be treated." If I were a criminal I would not wish to be punished. Therefore according to the golden rule we should never punish any criminals.
Letting a perpetrator get away with it is like inviting the next one to do the same.
Nobody who abuses GPL software does so unknowingly. Including software into any system involves a lot of knowledge and work. I doubt anyone can "overlook" the fact some free software is GPLed. And when including third party stuff into your product, making sure that you are entitled to use it is part of the job, or isn't it?
On the other hand: settlements are fine, if fair.
Cheers
zapyon
I would stay clear of Ninjas if i were you.
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
A few lines of code are all that is needed. Let's call this replacement 'ScumBox'. ScumBox just needs to be a barely working dummy, so that scum always can claim: 'We are not using BusyBox, this is ScumBox, which we adjusted to our needs'.
the problem with _not_ enforcing GPL compliance is that if it goes on for long enough, companies may legitimately claim an "estoppel" defense, which summaries as "well you haven't bothered up until now, therefore you must not be bothered at all, go away". this is an *acceptable* legal defense, and it means that, by not enforcing Copyright, people are *losing* the right to that Copyright. that includes Google as much as anyone else, and the reason why i am singling them out is because a senior member of staff within Google specifically told me, when i pointed out the rampant GPL violations of the linux kernel source code inside Android, that "Google is not the world's GPL Cop".
And there's no way two lines can be so essential that you can't write your own.
Unless they're so unique and apposite that they're not two lines. They're the core of the program and your derivative cannot work without them.
If you can shave ten cents off the cost of your widget by using a slightly smaller memory module, you've just saved a million bucks.
Thank you. What are the terms for licensing this philosophical gem? (that's important, because you can claim copyright on this phrase for the next 130 or so years.)
I am not quite sure if it would work in all cases. One certain example comes to mind, where it might not have worked. This example I won't mention, for Godwin's sake. But some opponents are just too suicidal to be coerced into non-aggressive behaviour in a MAD setting.
The strategy against suicidal opponents is to grant them their wish before they attack you. Making it known that you're willing to die if it means destroying the enemy is justification for a first strike against you.
Except that's not at all what the "golden rule" means. It means that you treat people the way you want them to treat you, regardless how they actually have treated you. In other words, what you're saying is, "the golden rule can work, as long as you don't always follow it".
"The sage has no interest of his own, but takes the interests of the people as his own. He is kind to the kind; he is also kind to the unkind: for Virtue is kind. He is faithful to the faithful; he is also faithful to the unfaithful: for Virtue is faithful." —Lao Tzu
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
GPL - my stuff must remain free for everyone to use, modify and distribute AND all your stuff that has touched my stuff is now part of my stuff and must remain free for everyone to use, modify and distribute.
That's exactly how copyright is designed to work. If you copy someone's stuff, then they have partial or perhaps even total ownership of your copy.
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
Turnabout is fair play. If they're willing to do it to us, perhaps they should be made to feel the same pain.
WRONG. Just plain fucking WRONG.
Only if your stuff is actually a derivative work of the GPL stuff, and you are distributing it, does that come into play. If you don't want to abide by my terms, don't use my code. End of story.
Well, how is a person supposed to react if they knew that they were going to be excruciatingly branded and slathered in hot metal (Imhotep in The Mummy is not covered in mechanical flesh-eating scorpion-beatles... that is boiling mercury-gold-silver amalgam)? Isaac Passover Coat. Roasted whole, do not harm the boy. We keep a map simlar to that Da Vinci "roll roll roll your boat" from Hackers.
Incidentally, the opening scene for War Games includes a reference to the lady in the red dress from The Matrix.
the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
Except you need to go further back. If I was a criminal, I wouldn't want crimes committed against me. Therefore, according to the golden rule, I shouldn't be a criminal.
Treat the industry as you want to be treated.
I applaud your Christianity, but these are not people, they'r soulless machines. Corporations. They are only after money, and the people who run them worship that money, probably more than you worship God. When Jesus said to treat others how you want to be treated, I don't think he was referring to treating Satan as you would want to be treated.
A corporation is no more a "person" than your car is, no matter what the Supreme Court says. Feel free do do any damage you wish, unless, of course, it harms real people.
Free Martian Whores!
"Leave it to a stupid wop to bring a knife to a gunfight" -- Jim Malone (Sean Connery), The Untouchables
Free Martian Whores!
But that's NOT the golden rule. The golden rule doesn't say treat people how they treat you, or be nice as long as everyone else is. The rule is that you treat people like you would like to be treated because you're suppose to love your neighbor as much as you love yourself, even if your neighbor is the world's biggest asshole.
If you treat an asshole like he treats you, then you're an asshole, too. You're not going to turn many assholes into non-assholes, period, but you certainly wo't get them to stop assholish behavior by being one. Fighting fire with fire only results in a huge fire; you need water, not gasoline.
And besides, everybody is an asshole some time or another. But some people are born sociopaths, nothing will change them. The trick is avoiding them completely.
The whole philosophy is, unhappily, the antithesis of America. Blessed are the meek? Yeah. Blessed are the poor??? (banker laughs his ass off). If someone sues you for your cloak, give him your coat as well? Sure, uh huh. In America? LOL!
Someone yesterday said Christians are weird. He's right, we are.
Free Martian Whores!
Absolutely correct. There will also be users who start down the path of loading modified software into the product they bought, screw it up and then complain loudly to the manufacturer that it's broken. Unlike the "I hit it with a hammer" case, its never going to be obvious that the user is the one who willfully bricked the device, so the manufacturer is going to end up replacing it every time. This is a huge drain on profits, so Sony is making the business decision to prevent this happening. Sound decision, I'd do the same.
The golden rule is a concept that is in pretty much every religion or culture. At its heart is the concept of reciprocity, which is just another way of saying "tit for tat". Naturally this should be the case, since in the iterated social interactions between citizens that are common to every society it is only natural that the different game playing strategies emerge. It is also only natural that different thinkers in different societies give them a name, and especially the one that is necessary and to be encouraged for a functioning society.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Rule
As far as Christianity is referred, I was using the "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" version of the golden rule. And unless one is of the opinion that one's own evil deeds should escape punishment, then getting vengeance is compatible with the golden rule.
The goal is not to turn assholes into non-assholes. It's to punish them and to set an example to other would-be assholes - do they want the carrot or the stick?
Mostly true. Then often when that happens karma will catch up with you in the form of others teaching you a lesson.
This was the interpretation of Christianity I had in my youth, the doormat version of Christianity. This was one of the reasons I decided it was not for me. However, to get a correct assessment I would probably have to study everything as an adult and come to my own conclusions. Realistically Christians and Christian nations have embarked on campaigns of retaliation. Personally I don't think a society of doormats is a noble or good thing. But I view the bible as an imperfect product of many different men, so I am not surprised that practically speaking it has to be "hacked" to be followed properly, if at all.
If I have seen further it is by stealing the Intellectual Property of giants.
If you look at the wikipedia list of all the different conceptions of the golden rule, I'm sure you will find one that is consistent with my interpretation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Rule
If you want to obey a primitive version of the golden rule that says you should behave the same way to all people, then go ahead. Go ahead and get screwed by all the sociopaths in life if that is your wont.
Personally, I follow something like this:
1. Don't get screwed, by anyone.
2. Be nice to others, starting in small amounts and then gradually increasing as they reciprocate.
3. But note their behavior - are they attempting to con you? If so, avoid. See rule 1.
4. If someone attempts to screw you for a small amount, write it off. Part of the point of rule 2. is to make the amount that you would be screwed by so minuscule that it's not worth someone's time and effort to do so.
5. If someone screws you for a non-trivial amount, get justice.
If I meet others following the same policy, I will build up good friendships and relationships with people I can trust. I am more than happy to "be done by" anyone following these rules as it will lead to the sort of reliable relationships with others I seek, along with filtering out everyone I don't want to deal with.
A note to the pedantic - rule 1. does not include acts of charity, and general duties to one's own family. Looking after your wife and family as a provider is not "getting screwed". It's doing your job.
If I have seen further it is by stealing the Intellectual Property of giants.
For a massive example of MAD failing, take a look at the patent lawsuits between Apple/Google/Samsung/Nokia etc.
Lawsuits don't necessarily amount to mutually assured destruction for large companies, so it's not a failure of MAD.
It's a case of iterated Prisoner's Dilemma. Usually, companies will cross-license each other's patents, since cooperating is cheaper than suing each other. But if, say, Apple believes the expected damages from an infringement suit against Google (minus the cost in PR and legal expense) outweigh the benefits of peaceful coexistence, then it makes sense (from their perspective) to sue.
In general, it is safe and legal to kill your children. -- POSIX Programmer's Guide
And unless one is of the opinion that one's own evil deeds should escape punishment, then getting vengeance is compatible with the golden rule.
Ah, but escaping one's own evil deeds is the bedrock of Christianity. Your sins are forgiven, paid in blood by the world's only innocent man. How can you be forgiven if you refuse to forgive others? That is the difference between Christianity and all other religions.
The goal is not to turn assholes into non-assholes. It's to punish them and to set an example to other would-be assholes - do they want the carrot or the stick?
You can't change people. Assholes will be assholes and there's nothing you or I can do about it. There's no cure for sociopathy.
This was the interpretation of Christianity I had in my youth, the doormat version of Christianity. This was one of the reasons I decided it was not for me. However, to get a correct assessment I would probably have to study everything as an adult and come to my own conclusions.
Studying it as an adult is logical. And rather than being a doormat, you just say "no". Ripped me off? Not getting back in the house again. Didn't pay back the money I loaned? Don't ask for more. Reward good deeds, forgive evil deeds but don't let the evil be rewrded. It isn't easy and nobody can do it well.
Free Martian Whores!