5 ms·

This is bad because Busybox has copyright holders that actively enforce the GPL on their product. They're not asking for this because they dislike Busybox'es G

by gcp 15y ago

This is bad because Busybox has copyright holders that actively enforce the GPL on their product. They're not asking for this because they dislike Busybox'es GPL license. They're asking for it because they know Busybox actually goes to court to enforce it, and asks for the other GPL products to have their license respected too. I'll spell it out more clearer: they want to get rid of Busybox, because its one of the only things whose license they cannot violate with impunity.

jlarocco 15y ago
I'm still not seeing the problem. On one hand, if the license holders of the other infringing software don't care to enforce the license, why should anybody care? It makes no sense to me, but it's up to them. On the other hand, if Sony would rather write it themselves than abide by the GPL then I'm not seeing the problem there, either. Again, it makes no sense, but it's their decision.
- gcp 15y ago
  On one hand, if the license holders of the other infringing software don't care to enforce the license, why should anybody care? It makes no sense to me, but it's up to them. Believe it or not, most free software developers aren't dying to spend their time and money to start a copyright lawsuit against Sony. That doesn't mean they're actually OK with their copyright and licenses being violated. Public shaming is often much more cost-effective. But if there's one company that doesn't give a rats ass, it's Sony. Most free software developers also don't register their copyright (unlike Sony) and so aren't entitled to those fantastically high statutory damages. They have to prove actual damages. For free software. Good luck.
  - anonymoushn 15y ago
    If there are GPL software developers who are having their licenses infringed and want to enforce, they can grant SFC the authority to enforce. I really don't see the problem here. On the other hand, more software that is not infected with a proprietary or copyleft license is always good.
    - ori_b 15y ago
      And that is exactly what this post is requesting that they do. It is making it clear that this is an option and asking that they do it.
  - dedward 15y ago
    Indeed - Pragmatically, why should sony care? They will care when they end up in court because the rightsholders go after them. if the rightsholders are not willing or able to do so, then sony doesnt have much to worry about. thats business. Sony aside, I wondr if it is legally feasible for there to beaclass action suit against a large serial gpl violator, the class being developers only related by the license they chose to use.... copyright violation is illegal, after all, right?
  - emil10001 15y ago
    Here's a question: How is Sony's behavior on this so different from what MegaUpload is being accused of? Basically, Sony is admitting that they are doing this so that they can avoid complying with the GPL, meaning that it is their intent to violate copyright law, knowing that they probably won't get sued over it. Isn't this a criminal act on the part of Sony? I realize that it isn't as cut and dry, but I do see some strong parallels. Further, why are these companies so stupid as to not release the source for their BusyBox implementation without being sued? It seems like it would be much, much simpler than trying to hold onto it and then be forced into a situation of releasing the source for everything that's covered.
- ghshephard 15y ago
  The article made it clear that it's _expensive_ to enforce the license, and time consuming. Most software developers don't have the kind of deep pockets, or the time, required to chase down Sony. You may be both wealthy, and have lots of time on your hand - in which case, it would make sense for you to chase down Sony violating your copyright - if you are so inclined. Nobody has a problem with Sony writing their own version of BusyBox - good for them if they can do it. But, if the reason they are writing their own version, is so they can, without worry, violate _everyone else's_ copyright - then that's somewhat shady behavior. Ironically - from a "Game Theoretic" position, Sony's approach is entirely rational. Take out the opponent who can stand up against you, and crush those who can't. So - I'm simultaneously impressed by their strategy while offended by their attitude.
angersock 15y ago
So, if they switch to (say) a full BSD-licensed stack, what is the problem? They can use it for whatever, modify the code for whatever, and there shouldn't be any problems. Why is this a bad thing, other than that it weakens the importance of the GPL?
- thristian 15y ago
  If they were going to switch to a full BSD-licensed stack, there would be no problem. They want to switch to a mostly-GPL stack, except for the one component that causes them to have to live up to their GPL obligations.
  - angersock 15y ago
    Ah, so, that's kind of a dick move. Thanks for the explanation!
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - dedward 15y ago
    until any other rightsholder whos copyright is being violated does the same thing....... its pretty simple.
- jevinskie 15y ago
  That would be fine but the article indicates that they want to continue to use other GPL code (like the Linux kernel) without complying with the GPL. Only Busybox copyright holders have been eager to prosecute violators - removing Busybox would let vendors violate the GPL with little practical consequences.
  - dedward 15y ago
    is it realistic for someone who releases their code to expect an unrelated party dealing with a license violation to just give them a free ride to enforcement? I mean, fine if they do, but it is by no means expected. I dont disagree with how this looks on sony's part, but mucking about with other peoples license enforcement smells kind of funny. Who says sony doesnt have a license from the author on a given piece of code? I mean, sure, then linix kernel andwhatnot, we know, but hypothetically, they could be usingsoftware available to the general public under gpl, but licenced to sony including non-disclosure terms about the license - only thecopyright holders can go after them, as it should be. If its your work and you hold the copyright, how you license, distribute, and enforce it are all up to you.
akira2501 15y ago
If it's about violations, or money, I can't strictly tell; it's one of those things that depends on who you talk to: http://lwn.net/Articles/475901/ http://lwn.net/Articles/475901/
- mjg59 15y ago
  The SFC's a 501(c)(3), so any money from the suits goes back into supporting their associated projects or supporting other ongoing actions.
  - akira2501 15y ago
    That they use the money for "good things" is great; however, if you're trying to get greater compliance then perhaps this approach is flawed. If they're placing too high a monetary value on non-compliance with the license, then you could easily see why these companies would push back and seek these types of alternatives; or flat out deny the use of (L)GPL software in their products entirely. In the end, this is probably the opposite of what the SFC intended and may result in the loss of their greatest legal tool.
    - mjg59 15y ago
      My understanding is that any amount above costs is pretty limited - it's also far less than commercial licensing of the code would have cost. The companies who habitually violate the GPL contribute approximately nothing back to the wider ecosystem. The best you can say is that they gain brand awareness for Linux, but that's it. People release code under copyleft licenses because they want people to provide source to their downstream recipients. If they were more interested in brand awareness than source, they'd have used a liberal BSD-style license instead. Having vendors refuse to use GPLed code because they don't want to ship source is arguably a perfectly reasonable outcome.

by gcp 15y ago

jlarocco 15y ago

I'm still not seeing the problem. On one hand, if the license holders of the other infringing software don't care to enforce the license, why should anybody care? It makes no sense to me, but it's up to them. On the other hand, if Sony would rather write it themselves than abide by the GPL then I'm not seeing the problem there, either. Again, it makes no sense, but it's their decision.

gcp 15y ago
On one hand, if the license holders of the other infringing software don't care to enforce the license, why should anybody care? It makes no sense to me, but it's up to them. Believe it or not, most free software developers aren't dying to spend their time and money to start a copyright lawsuit against Sony. That doesn't mean they're actually OK with their copyright and licenses being violated. Public shaming is often much more cost-effective. But if there's one company that doesn't give a rats ass, it's Sony. Most free software developers also don't register their copyright (unlike Sony) and so aren't entitled to those fantastically high statutory damages. They have to prove actual damages. For free software. Good luck.
- anonymoushn 15y ago
  If there are GPL software developers who are having their licenses infringed and want to enforce, they can grant SFC the authority to enforce. I really don't see the problem here. On the other hand, more software that is not infected with a proprietary or copyleft license is always good.
  - ori_b 15y ago
    And that is exactly what this post is requesting that they do. It is making it clear that this is an option and asking that they do it.
- dedward 15y ago
  Indeed - Pragmatically, why should sony care? They will care when they end up in court because the rightsholders go after them. if the rightsholders are not willing or able to do so, then sony doesnt have much to worry about. thats business. Sony aside, I wondr if it is legally feasible for there to beaclass action suit against a large serial gpl violator, the class being developers only related by the license they chose to use.... copyright violation is illegal, after all, right?
- emil10001 15y ago
  Here's a question: How is Sony's behavior on this so different from what MegaUpload is being accused of? Basically, Sony is admitting that they are doing this so that they can avoid complying with the GPL, meaning that it is their intent to violate copyright law, knowing that they probably won't get sued over it. Isn't this a criminal act on the part of Sony? I realize that it isn't as cut and dry, but I do see some strong parallels. Further, why are these companies so stupid as to not release the source for their BusyBox implementation without being sued? It seems like it would be much, much simpler than trying to hold onto it and then be forced into a situation of releasing the source for everything that's covered.
ghshephard 15y ago
The article made it clear that it's _expensive_ to enforce the license, and time consuming. Most software developers don't have the kind of deep pockets, or the time, required to chase down Sony. You may be both wealthy, and have lots of time on your hand - in which case, it would make sense for you to chase down Sony violating your copyright - if you are so inclined. Nobody has a problem with Sony writing their own version of BusyBox - good for them if they can do it. But, if the reason they are writing their own version, is so they can, without worry, violate _everyone else's_ copyright - then that's somewhat shady behavior. Ironically - from a "Game Theoretic" position, Sony's approach is entirely rational. Take out the opponent who can stand up against you, and crush those who can't. So - I'm simultaneously impressed by their strategy while offended by their attitude.

angersock 15y ago

So, if they switch to (say) a full BSD-licensed stack, what is the problem? They can use it for whatever, modify the code for whatever, and there shouldn't be any problems. Why is this a bad thing, other than that it weakens the importance of the GPL?

thristian 15y ago
If they were going to switch to a full BSD-licensed stack, there would be no problem. They want to switch to a mostly-GPL stack, except for the one component that causes them to have to live up to their GPL obligations.
- angersock 15y ago
  Ah, so, that's kind of a dick move. Thanks for the explanation!
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- dedward 15y ago
  until any other rightsholder whos copyright is being violated does the same thing....... its pretty simple.
jevinskie 15y ago
That would be fine but the article indicates that they want to continue to use other GPL code (like the Linux kernel) without complying with the GPL. Only Busybox copyright holders have been eager to prosecute violators - removing Busybox would let vendors violate the GPL with little practical consequences.
- dedward 15y ago
  is it realistic for someone who releases their code to expect an unrelated party dealing with a license violation to just give them a free ride to enforcement? I mean, fine if they do, but it is by no means expected. I dont disagree with how this looks on sony's part, but mucking about with other peoples license enforcement smells kind of funny. Who says sony doesnt have a license from the author on a given piece of code? I mean, sure, then linix kernel andwhatnot, we know, but hypothetically, they could be usingsoftware available to the general public under gpl, but licenced to sony including non-disclosure terms about the license - only thecopyright holders can go after them, as it should be. If its your work and you hold the copyright, how you license, distribute, and enforce it are all up to you.

akira2501 15y ago

If it's about violations, or money, I can't strictly tell; it's one of those things that depends on who you talk to: http://lwn.net/Articles/475901/ http://lwn.net/Articles/475901/

mjg59 15y ago
The SFC's a 501(c)(3), so any money from the suits goes back into supporting their associated projects or supporting other ongoing actions.
- akira2501 15y ago
  That they use the money for "good things" is great; however, if you're trying to get greater compliance then perhaps this approach is flawed. If they're placing too high a monetary value on non-compliance with the license, then you could easily see why these companies would push back and seek these types of alternatives; or flat out deny the use of (L)GPL software in their products entirely. In the end, this is probably the opposite of what the SFC intended and may result in the loss of their greatest legal tool.
  - mjg59 15y ago
    My understanding is that any amount above costs is pretty limited - it's also far less than commercial licensing of the code would have cost. The companies who habitually violate the GPL contribute approximately nothing back to the wider ecosystem. The best you can say is that they gain brand awareness for Linux, but that's it. People release code under copyleft licenses because they want people to provide source to their downstream recipients. If they were more interested in brand awareness than source, they'd have used a liberal BSD-style license instead. Having vendors refuse to use GPLed code because they don't want to ship source is arguably a perfectly reasonable outcome.