4 ms·

BusyBox 1.36.0

53 points by marcodiego 4y ago

mat_epice 4y ago
BusyBox -- A user environment that lets me know that shit has gotten REAL. On a different note, in a past life, I had a lot of fun instrumenting BusyBox's ash to do some extra systems-level magic. Having small, accessible implementations of things can help a lot even on "normal" Linux computers.
sashk 4y ago
> crond: implement support for setting PATH in crontab files Oh, I hit this couple of times.
augusto-moura 4y ago
It looks like we hugged it to death
- mdaniel 4y ago
  All hail Wayback: https://web.archive.org/web/20230104011250/https://busybox.net/ https://web.archive.org/web/20230104011250/https://busybox.n... (and it seems they run their own git server, which is similarly sad right now)
tastysandwich 4y ago
Just a reminder that BusyBox have been known to be quite litigious regarding licensing violations. Your company might want to look at Toybox instead, which has a more permissive license. (Not criticising BusyBox's use of GPL or even the lawsuits. It's just an FYI, as it can be easy to get caught out by licensing requirements, especially for smaller companies)
- cf100clunk 4y ago
  > quite litigious I would have used the term "vigilant" instead of "litigious". There is much less connotation of barratry, shakedowns, and other distasteful activities. > it can be easy to get caught out by licensing requirements Indeed, a possibly dire situation to fall into.
  - tastysandwich 4y ago
    Fair enough, hence the additional comment just clarifying that I'm not being critical of them for that.
    - imglorp 4y ago
      Maybe one could say Busybox is often used in situations where license obligations are easier to neglect, for example embedded devices and container farms.
- chubot 4y ago
  As far as I know, the requirement is to dump a tarball of any changes you made on a web server Is that an onerous requirement?
  - zamadatix 4y ago
    And document that’s what you used and where to find the tarball (and include scripts/steps etc relating to building it). Not particularly difficult/onerous just easy to overlook or later forget, also something you need to pass to people that may redistribute your stuff in a larger package.
    - nix23 4y ago
      The GPLv2 (BusyBox) says the end-user needs to have access to the changed sources (for example a link to it) and a copy of the license IF and just IF you redistribute the Code. The link could be very well a magnetlink to a tar or a patch-file on pastebin (and since it's a patch you already say whats changed and when 2a from the GPLv2 resolved). You don't need to include scripts or documentation or anything relating to building or running it in production, who told you that BS?
      - zamadatix 4y ago
        Maybe you have this confused with a different license or non commercial use? GPLv2 requires full source + patches, you can’t just link a diff and call it a day. It also has to actually be reachable for a minimum period, you can’t just throw out a magnet link and say someone else will provide it when you are asked (always seeding the magnet link is valid but not particularly easier for you). Using a 3rd party puts you in an awkward place if that 3rd party host disappears next year for some crazy reason. Build scripts such as make files are definitely required with the exception of what the license gives. As for where I’m hearing this both the busy ox license FAQ and the gnu.org GPL FAQ agree, as does the text of the license.
        nix23 4y ago
        Your making problem's up where no are, make a textfile trow in your for example *gnu.org links for the full source and trow in your patches at the end of the file. >you can’t just throw out a magnet link and say There are webseed's too with your 2kb textfile on a web-server or github, or hey just trow it on github completely, or send it to an archives maillist. I hope i never have a meeting with you, you act like it's a moon mission and not just a really simple copy-paste gist.
- mdaniel 4y ago
  Lazyweb, since searching for "Toybox" wasn't helpful: https://github.com/landley/toybox#readme https://github.com/landley/toybox#readme (although "toybox shell" did help) And it's BSD Zero Clause, for those who are curious: https://github.com/landley/toybox/blob/0.8.8/LICENSE https://github.com/landley/toybox/blob/0.8.8/LICENSE
- burtness 4y ago
  This misrepresents what happens if you use busybox in your product and don't comply with the license (posting a buildable version of your changes) - they first try and negotiate compliance before starting litigation. You won't get served papers until you refuse to comply with the license. This includes giving you time to fix the situation - https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/principles.html https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/principles.htm...
NayamAmarshe 4y ago
You've served me well for years. Thank you for existing, busybox.

53 points by marcodiego 4y ago

BusyBox -- A user environment that lets me know that shit has gotten REAL. On a different note, in a past life, I had a lot of fun instrumenting BusyBox's ash to do some extra systems-level magic. Having small, accessible implementations of things can help a lot even on "normal" Linux computers.

sashk 4y ago

> crond: implement support for setting PATH in crontab files Oh, I hit this couple of times.

augusto-moura 4y ago

It looks like we hugged it to death

mdaniel 4y ago
All hail Wayback: https://web.archive.org/web/20230104011250/https://busybox.net/ https://web.archive.org/web/20230104011250/https://busybox.n... (and it seems they run their own git server, which is similarly sad right now)

tastysandwich 4y ago

Just a reminder that BusyBox have been known to be quite litigious regarding licensing violations. Your company might want to look at Toybox instead, which has a more permissive license. (Not criticising BusyBox's use of GPL or even the lawsuits. It's just an FYI, as it can be easy to get caught out by licensing requirements, especially for smaller companies)

cf100clunk 4y ago
> quite litigious I would have used the term "vigilant" instead of "litigious". There is much less connotation of barratry, shakedowns, and other distasteful activities. > it can be easy to get caught out by licensing requirements Indeed, a possibly dire situation to fall into.
- tastysandwich 4y ago
  Fair enough, hence the additional comment just clarifying that I'm not being critical of them for that.
  - imglorp 4y ago
    Maybe one could say Busybox is often used in situations where license obligations are easier to neglect, for example embedded devices and container farms.
chubot 4y ago
As far as I know, the requirement is to dump a tarball of any changes you made on a web server Is that an onerous requirement?
- zamadatix 4y ago
  And document that’s what you used and where to find the tarball (and include scripts/steps etc relating to building it). Not particularly difficult/onerous just easy to overlook or later forget, also something you need to pass to people that may redistribute your stuff in a larger package.
  - nix23 4y ago
    The GPLv2 (BusyBox) says the end-user needs to have access to the changed sources (for example a link to it) and a copy of the license IF and just IF you redistribute the Code. The link could be very well a magnetlink to a tar or a patch-file on pastebin (and since it's a patch you already say whats changed and when 2a from the GPLv2 resolved). You don't need to include scripts or documentation or anything relating to building or running it in production, who told you that BS?
    - zamadatix 4y ago
      Maybe you have this confused with a different license or non commercial use? GPLv2 requires full source + patches, you can’t just link a diff and call it a day. It also has to actually be reachable for a minimum period, you can’t just throw out a magnet link and say someone else will provide it when you are asked (always seeding the magnet link is valid but not particularly easier for you). Using a 3rd party puts you in an awkward place if that 3rd party host disappears next year for some crazy reason. Build scripts such as make files are definitely required with the exception of what the license gives. As for where I’m hearing this both the busy ox license FAQ and the gnu.org GPL FAQ agree, as does the text of the license.
      - nix23 4y ago
        Your making problem's up where no are, make a textfile trow in your for example *gnu.org links for the full source and trow in your patches at the end of the file. >you can’t just throw out a magnet link and say There are webseed's too with your 2kb textfile on a web-server or github, or hey just trow it on github completely, or send it to an archives maillist. I hope i never have a meeting with you, you act like it's a moon mission and not just a really simple copy-paste gist.
mdaniel 4y ago
Lazyweb, since searching for "Toybox" wasn't helpful: https://github.com/landley/toybox#readme https://github.com/landley/toybox#readme (although "toybox shell" did help) And it's BSD Zero Clause, for those who are curious: https://github.com/landley/toybox/blob/0.8.8/LICENSE https://github.com/landley/toybox/blob/0.8.8/LICENSE
burtness 4y ago
This misrepresents what happens if you use busybox in your product and don't comply with the license (posting a buildable version of your changes) - they first try and negotiate compliance before starting litigation. You won't get served papers until you refuse to comply with the license. This includes giving you time to fix the situation - https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/principles.html https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/principles.htm...

NayamAmarshe 4y ago

You've served me well for years. Thank you for existing, busybox.