Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "BusyBox" in English language version.
From changelog: This is the last release of BusyBox under the old "GPLv2 or later" dual license. Future versions (containing changes after svn 16112) will just be GPLv2 only, without the "or later".
The 'ash' shell adds about 60k in the default configuration and is the most complete and most pedantically correct shell included with busybox. This shell is actually a derivative of the Debian 'dash' shell (by Herbert Xu), which was created by porting the 'ash' shell (written by Kenneth Almquist) from NetBSD.
Since BusyBox can be found in so many embedded systems, it finds itself at the core of the GPLv3 anti-DRM debate. [...]The real outcomes, however, are this: BusyBox will be GPLv2 only starting with the next release. It is generally accepted that stripping out the "or any later version" is legally defensible, and that the merging of other GPLv2-only code will force that issue in any case
Don't invent a straw man argument please. I consider licensing BusyBox under GPLv3 to be useless, unnecessary, overcomplicated, and confusing, and in addition to that it has actual downsides. 1) Useless: We're never dropping GPLv2.
The real problem here is that the [Software Freedom Conservancy's] reliance on Busybox means that they're only able to target infringers who use that Busybox code. No significant kernel copyright holders have so far offered to allow the SFC to enforce their copyrights, with the result that enforcement action will grind to a halt as vendors move over to this Busybox replacement.
>As the ex-maintainer of busybox who STARTED those lawsuits in the first place and now HUGELY REGRETS ever having done so, I think I'm entitled to stop the lawsuits in whatever way I see fit. They never resulted in a single line of code added to the busybox repository. They HAVE resulted in more than one company exiting Linux development entirely and switching to non-Linux operating systems for their embedded products, and they're a big part of the reason behind Android's "No GPL in userspace" policy.
From changelog: This is the last release of BusyBox under the old "GPLv2 or later" dual license. Future versions (containing changes after svn 16112) will just be GPLv2 only, without the "or later".
Since BusyBox can be found in so many embedded systems, it finds itself at the core of the GPLv3 anti-DRM debate. [...]The real outcomes, however, are this: BusyBox will be GPLv2 only starting with the next release. It is generally accepted that stripping out the "or any later version" is legally defensible, and that the merging of other GPLv2-only code will force that issue in any case
Don't invent a straw man argument please. I consider licensing BusyBox under GPLv3 to be useless, unnecessary, overcomplicated, and confusing, and in addition to that it has actual downsides. 1) Useless: We're never dropping GPLv2.
Public floggings and executions like the recent SFLC lawsuit could be avoided if actual standards and procedures for compliance with the GPL and other Free and Open Source licenses actually existed.
The 'ash' shell adds about 60k in the default configuration and is the most complete and most pedantically correct shell included with busybox. This shell is actually a derivative of the Debian 'dash' shell (by Herbert Xu), which was created by porting the 'ash' shell (written by Kenneth Almquist) from NetBSD.
The real problem here is that the [Software Freedom Conservancy's] reliance on Busybox means that they're only able to target infringers who use that Busybox code. No significant kernel copyright holders have so far offered to allow the SFC to enforce their copyrights, with the result that enforcement action will grind to a halt as vendors move over to this Busybox replacement.
>As the ex-maintainer of busybox who STARTED those lawsuits in the first place and now HUGELY REGRETS ever having done so, I think I'm entitled to stop the lawsuits in whatever way I see fit. They never resulted in a single line of code added to the busybox repository. They HAVE resulted in more than one company exiting Linux development entirely and switching to non-Linux operating systems for their embedded products, and they're a big part of the reason behind Android's "No GPL in userspace" policy.
Public floggings and executions like the recent SFLC lawsuit could be avoided if actual standards and procedures for compliance with the GPL and other Free and Open Source licenses actually existed.
