"BusyBox's copyrights are enforced by the Software Freedom Law Center (you can contact them at gpl@busybox.net)"
This an effective process, but a slow one (expect it to take 6 months+ for any response on past experience).
For the linux kernel, lkml is perhaps an appropriate place.
FSF can't help, since they don't own any of the software.
You perhaps want to consider how you're wording your requests. If a polite (or impolite) request for source code has been refused, you might want to try a different track, pointing out that the hardware contains software that they have no valid license to distribute and is hence illegal, and would they like to discuss this further before you contact the copyright owner.
Under copyright law, there is absolutely no requirement for them to provide the source code. One possible legal conclusion is that they pay court decided damages to the copyright owners for illegal distribution to date, and cease further distribution. If they wish to continue distribution, it's likely that they're only available option is to open the source code, especially since their are often multiple copyright holders, especially in the linux kernel.
(Disclaimer, I'm not a lawyer, and some points will vary between jurisdictions.)
If that's the aim, it's really the mozilla public license you want. That requires anyone using it to release the source to parts of the code they modify.
If you use the LGPL, it requires thirdparties using your code to release their code in object form (unless they can use their libraries in dll), and at least the spirit of it requires them to release linking tools and enough other tools for the end user to be able to change the LGPL library and relink the supplied application so that it uses the modified library.
Nice principle, but it makes the use in any kind of embedded software either difficult or impossible. Companies I've worked for have had blanket policies against using LGPL code for exactly this reason.
Slashdot Mirror
As the parent says, only the copyright holder can actually take any legal action.
For busybox, you can see on http://busybox.net/license.html that:
"BusyBox's copyrights are enforced by the Software Freedom Law Center (you can contact them at gpl@busybox.net)"
This an effective process, but a slow one (expect it to take 6 months+ for any response on past experience).
For the linux kernel, lkml is perhaps an appropriate place.
FSF can't help, since they don't own any of the software.
You perhaps want to consider how you're wording your requests. If a polite (or impolite) request for source code has been refused, you might want to try a different track, pointing out that the hardware contains software that they have no valid license to distribute and is hence illegal, and would they like to discuss this further before you contact the copyright owner.
Under copyright law, there is absolutely no requirement for them to provide the source code. One possible legal conclusion is that they pay court decided damages to the copyright owners for illegal distribution to date, and cease further distribution. If they wish to continue distribution, it's likely that they're only available option is to open the source code, especially since their are often multiple copyright holders, especially in the linux kernel.
(Disclaimer, I'm not a lawyer, and some points will vary between jurisdictions.)
If that's the aim, it's really the mozilla public license you want. That requires anyone using it to release the source to parts of the code they modify.
If you use the LGPL, it requires thirdparties using your code to release their code in object form (unless they can use their libraries in dll), and at least the spirit of it requires them to release linking tools and enough other tools for the end user to be able to change the LGPL library and relink the supplied application so that it uses the modified library.
Nice principle, but it makes the use in any kind of embedded software either difficult or impossible. Companies I've worked for have had blanket policies against using LGPL code for exactly this reason.
wget from: http://security.debian.org/pool/updates/main/o/ope nssh/ssh_3.4p1-1.1_i386.deb
then dpkg -i the resulting file.