4 ms·

Moon mission man again: >>3(a) bundle the complete, corresponding source with the binary. >>Using option 3(a), that is, putting exact BusyBox source and .conf

by nix23 4y ago

Moon mission man again: >>3(a) bundle the complete, corresponding source with the binary. >>Using option 3(a), that is, putting exact BusyBox source and .config file you used to build the binary on the same medium which you use to ship the binary, plus "the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable" is the most bullet-proof approach to license compliance. If you do that, you can stop reading, your license obligations have likely been satisfied. ->is the most bullet-proof approach ->you can stop reading, your license obligations have likely been satisfied. This is the Link: https://www.busybox.net/license.html https://www.busybox.net/license.html They get angry if you don't make what the license says 1.5 year after they warned you...it's their right to do so. 60% of your comment are just mutated strings of text to fit your narrative. However, BSD/ISC/MIT are the better licenses anyway (for 99%), i don't want lawyers involved in a technical project if possible...also no Stallman's or free beer discussions.

zamadatix 4y ago
This is the page I have been referring to since you wrote "As far as I know, the requirement is to dump a tarball of any changes you made on a web server". Again what's on that page and what you were saying clearly disagreed, just go back and read your original comments now that you understand the distribution requirements. Nobody has been saying the requirements are complicated just easily missed. Despite the message of "if you do that, you can stop reading" imagine you might not always be able to do that and read on through to the following regarding option 3(b) which deals with their recommendation for what to do when you ship the binaries with firmware, the most common method of distributing copies of busybox. 3(a) is the simplest way for general software but it doesn't really make sense for the firmware distribution use case, as they note. Either way both 3(a) and 3(b) are completely different from what you were originally proposing to do and they both requiring delivering full source + build/install scripts even if you don't otherwise redistribute the source (just redistributing the binary is enough). Nothing complicated as long as you can get people to read the license page first. So far everything here but your earlier comments agree many other licenses are easier to comply with and it's not worth worrying about. This is why the original comment recommended looking at Toybox, a BSD licensed alternative, for the reasons you just listed. There's not any need to constantly call names or say responses are BS, the content of each message already speaks to its own value.

by nix23 4y ago

zamadatix 4y ago

This is the page I have been referring to since you wrote "As far as I know, the requirement is to dump a tarball of any changes you made on a web server". Again what's on that page and what you were saying clearly disagreed, just go back and read your original comments now that you understand the distribution requirements. Nobody has been saying the requirements are complicated just easily missed. Despite the message of "if you do that, you can stop reading" imagine you might not always be able to do that and read on through to the following regarding option 3(b) which deals with their recommendation for what to do when you ship the binaries with firmware, the most common method of distributing copies of busybox. 3(a) is the simplest way for general software but it doesn't really make sense for the firmware distribution use case, as they note. Either way both 3(a) and 3(b) are completely different from what you were originally proposing to do and they both requiring delivering full source + build/install scripts even if you don't otherwise redistribute the source (just redistributing the binary is enough). Nothing complicated as long as you can get people to read the license page first. So far everything here but your earlier comments agree many other licenses are easier to comply with and it's not worth worrying about. This is why the original comment recommended looking at Toybox, a BSD licensed alternative, for the reasons you just listed. There's not any need to constantly call names or say responses are BS, the content of each message already speaks to its own value.