Busybox Developer Responds To Andersen-SFLC Lawsuits 316
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."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
For God's sake, stop researching for a while and begin to think!
Proposition (Score:5, Interesting)
The version 0.60.3 of Busybox upon which Mr. Andersen claims copyright registration in the lawsuits is to a great extent my own work and that of other developers. I am not party to the registration. It is not at all clear that Mr. Andersen holds a majority interest in that work.
Perhaps it is high time you looked into the allegations that "every line of code you wrote for Busybox is gone?" [slashdot.org] 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 (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Proposition (Score:5, Informative)
What's your point Bruce? (Score:5, Interesting)
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? (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Funny)
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
Re:What's your point Bruce? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What's your point Bruce? (Score:5, Interesting)
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 gr8_phk? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Proposition (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:Proposition (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 a
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Because the license says so.
Re:Proposition (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:2, Funny)
This should be settled in a civilized manner. I suggest the lowest slashdot id wins.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:Proposition (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm sorry but this reads like bias and little else. I think what Bruce is getting at is that these lawsuits generate FUD amongst his clients. It's not about destroying the FSF or whatever you're going on about, it's about protecting the marketability of software Mr. Perens authored and now supports.
You know from the outside it may very well look like MS says people get sued for using FOSS, advocates scream to no end about FUD, and then the FOSS developers come out and start suing people.
GPL != ClusterFuck (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Raises an interesting issue (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Um, did you just "tweet" on Slashdot? That's !lame.
Re: (Score:2)
Then please explain to me what the hell the octothorpe historically represents in that context.
Re: (Score:2)
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 expu
Re: (Score:3)
s/SFLC/RIAA/g;
What's the difference here, except that for a "donation", the donor, not the recipient, pays the taxes [irs.gov] ...
Re: (Score:3)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 a
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
and violating the GNU
Don't do that. They've got pointy horns and know how to use them.
Re:Raises an interesting issue (Score:5, Insightful)
Waitaminute: (Score:2)
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: (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Waitaminute: (Score:4, Interesting)
Then isn't that enough to enforce it? Where does your copyright come into picture? He's enforcing his copyright, not yours.
Worst summary ever. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Worst summary ever. (Score:5, Informative)
Here's the original story:
http://linux.slashdot.org/story/09/12/14/210207/SFLC-Sues-14-Companies-For-BusyBox-GPL-Violations [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
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,
Re:Worst summary ever. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Worst summary ever. (Score:5, Informative)
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. (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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 identica
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"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 ances
Re: (Score:2)
How about it, Bruce, can you give us the nickel summary? Thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Does it matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Does it really matter? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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? (Score:4, Interesting)
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? (Score:5, Informative)
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."
IANAL (Score:2)
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. Wh
Quick and dirty translation: (Score:2)
Stop being a dick.
it doesn't matter (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
Re:it doesn't matter (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Backing Bruce's Copyright (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Backing Bruce's Copyright (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re:Backing Bruce's Copyright (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 t
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Backing Bruce's Copyright (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 hea
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 c
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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. I
I used Eric Anderson in 2000 to consult on Busybox (Score:4, Informative)
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 [wikispeedia.org]
Why not BSD or Mozilla it? (Score:3, Funny)
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.
So write another one. (Score:3, Interesting)
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. (Score:4, Informative)
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) [freebsd.org] for more details.
Re:Hey (Score:4, Funny)
No pitching your own crappy stuff here, ok?
On Slashdot?! You must be new here.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm... that is most definitely Microsoft’s favicon [microsoft.com], but requests for http://perens.com/favicon.ico [perens.com] gives this response:
Looks like you found a bug in the way Chrome reacts to a zero-length favicon.ico! :o
Re: (Score:2)
It's a bug, http://perens.com/favicon.ico [perens.com] returns an empty file (zero bytes long). I guess chromo can't handle that (firefox does ;) )
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Bill
Re:Drama, drama. (Score:5, Informative)
You might find Jacobsen v. Katzer educational. Jacobsen was using the Artistic License 1.0, and this did not protect him from Katzer.
Re:license applied to code, but owned by coder (Score:4, Informative)
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.