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.'"
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!
Exactly. I can't record songs off the radio and put them in my YouTube videos, right. One set of copyright advocates has set the bar very high that even background recording has to be trimmed out. They do it less now because they cut a deal with Google to just steal YOUR ad revenue if something is "infringing" rather than take down the item.
So to the established industry, taking ALL your ad revenue for "one small portion" that infringes is perfectly reasonable. Sony OWNS the companies that WROTE these deals... The GPL is far more leinant because it doesn't deal with damages... Just fix the infringement by adjusting your work and move on.
These companies all want SOPA. Fine. Let's hear up BusyBox devs to be the first in line with the new style domain seizures... For a company like Sony with hundreds of products all tied to Sony.com getting the "three strikes" on BusyBox alone should take till about noon the day after the rule hits the books. Hopefully the courts would remember WHO pushed for the law!