Scripps Employees Called 'Hackers' For Exposing Massive Security Flaw
Suspected PayPal Hackers Seek Deal To Stay Out Of Prison
14 corporate bad boys named in BusyBox lawsuit for GPL violations
The lawsuit revolves around a tool called BusyBox. Often referred to as Linux's 'Swiss Army Knife', BusyBox is a compact, modular and highly-optimized package of utilities for the Linux operating system. It's used in vast number of scenarios and applications, commercial or otherwise, and usually without issue. For some unknown reason these 14 companies have decided to disregard the SFLC's requests to comply with the GPL -- all they had to do was make their source code available to download!
Yes, the GPL is about as 'free' as software gets, but it is share-and-share-alike. That's the basis of the open source software (OSS) movement. It's only fair, after all, that you give as well as take. What these large companies are doing is simply ignorant, pig-headed and brutish. It's a blatant discourtesy towards the developers and beautiful code of BusyBox.
[via ZDNet]
Comments
6
Subscribe to commentsminibarDec 15th 2009 2:05PM
agree all except one word, however a couple thoughts:
providing source code is not the only way to support oss. i'm pretty sure defendants could make available the source code printed on t-shirts to be legit, yet worthless. so, i wonder if gpl etc. have considered some kind of offset credit buy-in alternative for companies that would like to support oss without adding another server few would ever notice.
although not a high probability event, it concerns me that suits like this could backfire at least in part and end up eroding or undermining oss. i understand the importance and that even if judgement errs there could be a longer term benefit, but law is incremental with many unforeseen consequences, so i hope this achieves something worthwhile.
Sebastian AnthonyDec 15th 2009 2:08PM
I'm sure the only real intention is to make sure large corporations don't abuse the OSS movement. In today's world, it's all take, take, take -- it seems people don't give back unless forced to (because there's no direct monetary gain by giving back... alas...)
Let's hope it works out OK!
minibarDec 15th 2009 4:35PM
i agree that any un-exercised right loses it's force and without reading the lawsuit there was probably a free-rider problem.
however, my point was that there reaches a time when the n+1-th copy of gpl source code, where n is large, has so little utility that there are far better ways to advance oss objectives, and corporations might find it advantageous to be able to purchase credits which better serve oss interests.
we've seen something similar where hardware and software manufacturers provide computing resources to gpl developers and i've seen numerous gpl authors plead for these resources, so it's warranted and if it could be harnessed it could serve as an engine for oss development to increase market share.
Sebastian AnthonyDec 15th 2009 4:45PM
Very true, on all counts.
I don't think anyone's claiming that the GPL is perfect, just a lot better than many other alternatives. I'm sure we'll see further evolution of the OSS movement in the next few years!
RoozbehDec 15th 2009 2:20PM
I am not sure if I am right but GPL allows you to sell your software and you can choose your price as high as you want as long as you provide the source. So for instance BestBuy can release their modified software under GPL for $100,000,000 or some ridiculously high price that no one would wanna buy it and drop the law suit.
pennyDec 15th 2009 7:26PM
Pretty sure you have to provide the source free to anyone who wants it, regardless of whether they buy the modified software or not