[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Is the GPL all encompassing?

From: amicus_curious
Subject: Re: Is the GPL all encompassing?
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 16:32:22 -0400

"Hyman Rosen" <> wrote in message news:jEvCk.833$
amicus_curious wrote:
Of late, the only resistance offered was by Verizon who were freely
> given a dismissal with predjudice which, in effect, is a license to
> distribute the busy box code without bothering with the source
> distribution although I am sure they don't care to do so anyway.

The company which manufactures the routers, Actiontec, distributes
the GPLed sources. Verizon provides a gateway to Actiontec for
firmware upgrades.

That does not matter. The suit filed was against Verizon distributing Busy Box without following the GPL. The authors surrendered "with predjudice" meaning they cannot sue Verizon for distribution of Busy Box without following the GPL.

You would have to connect up your statement as to how ludicrous
> "casual users" could be and why.

You stated "The Busy Box stuff seems to be a[n]... effort to get
casual users to pay" thereby characterizing the plaintiffs, which
have included router manufacturers, as "casual users". A router
manufacturer is not a casual user, so I characterized your
characterization as ludicrous. Shall I illustrate my understanding
of "ad hominem" by calling you ludicrous as well?

The manufactures simply used the Busy Box software unmodified. That is a casual user in my lexicon. If they had used it as a base to develop some additional functions, they would be in a different category. The Busy Box authors do not prevent any individual who receives the source code from Busy Box project from using it any way they want. There is no real difference in using Busy Box if received from a third party that there is if received from the primary source. The authors are not compensated in either case. All they have is the recognition and they are lusting after that. That is egocentric behavior in my assessment.

The objective of the open source community is to get everyone using the same thing and periodically improving on it in order to make progress.

The FSF is not a member of the "open source" community. It is a
member of the "free software" community. Its objectives are for
users of programs to have the freedom to run, read, change, and
share them.

I don't think that many people who are FOSS or OSS fans would concur with that.

Denying someone the opportunity to make progress

Equally, those who refuse to share are also denying others the
opportunity to make progress. So are those who demand money. It's
a free market, and creators get to set the terms under which their
creations may be used. Anyone who wants to be more generous to
those who do not want to be generous in turn is free to use another
license. Those who have chosen the GPL have already stated their terms.

That just seems to compound the problem. If any progress is made, it should be available to anyone who can avail themselves of it. It may be better to have progress AND provide for additional progress, but it is silly to deny the original progress just because some additional paths are not also provided.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]