Re: Microsoft needs a help strategy

[amicus_curious]

"Hyman Rosen" <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote in message 
news:StDfl.11984$E%6.12@newsfe04.iad...
> amicus_curious wrote:
> > Big deal.  The source code for the firmware was already available
> > in dozens of places.  What good is one more snapshot?
>
> Well, just because Microsoft already has plenty of money doesn't
> mean that you may choose not to pay for your copy of Office. The
> license requires that the source be made available.
>
> More to the point, how would someone who receives only a binary
> know what source was used to build it? How would he know that the
> manufacturer hadn't made any changes? It is the person who makes
> the binary who knows just what sources are used to make it, and
> the GPL wisely requires that this person make the exact sources
> available.

All that would be important, I agree, if the source code could be used to 
build some kind of binary that the device used directly and that established 
characteristics for the device.  But such is not the case here.  The GPL 
source in question is the BusyBox utility function set that is used by the 
vendor's proprietary Linux compatible application to do various things.  If 
you wanted to use it yourself, you would presumably go to busybox.net and 
get the latest.

Where there might be some GPL program that was actually modified from its 
original and used to perform some complete function, disclosure of the 
source would be significant.  But these poor souls are simply using embedded 
Linux/Busybox in lieu of more conventional Linux/GNU Utilities to run their 
applications.  There is no benefit to the community of any real significance 
in harassing them over adding one more site to download from.  All that 
seems to achieve is to give credibility to Ballmer's warning that Linux is a 
sort of cancer that a business whould be smart to avoid.