Since I am the Sony engineer mentioned in the article, I can provide some some clarifications as to why I think this project is desirable. First, I should say that in so speaking, I am not representing Sony. Other than my activity to investigate this problem space, and generate this proposal, Sony has not yet funded this project.
Matthew correctly points out that the busybox litigators use busybox as a leverage for asking for more than just the busybox source. I believe they do not have this right (either legally or morally). It is this aspect of the situation that some companies find undesireable. It represents a business risk that is beyond the value that busybox provides.
The intent of this project is not to shield GPL violators. It is intended to prevent violation in the first place. I view the need for this project with some sadness, as I myself have worked hard for many years to encourage GPL compliance. I will continue to do so.
I think that reducing the legal uncertainty involved with using GPL software increases the likelihood of adoption and compliance. This is in stark contrast to the direction that the SFC has taken with their re-compliance requirements.
What Matthew argues here is that the ends justify the means, in terms of GPL enforcement. I respectfully disagree. -- Tim Bird
Power management, mobile and firmware developer on Linux. Security developer at nvidia. Ex-biologist. Content here should not be interpreted as the opinion of my employer. Also on Mastodon and Bluesky.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
From the Sony engineer mentioned...
Date: 2012-01-31 05:15 pm (UTC)Matthew correctly points out that the busybox litigators use busybox as a leverage for asking for more than just the busybox source. I believe they do not have this right (either legally or morally). It is this aspect of the situation that some companies find undesireable. It represents a business risk that is beyond the value that busybox provides.
The intent of this project is not to shield GPL violators. It is intended to prevent violation in the first place. I view the need for this project with some sadness, as I myself have worked hard for many years to encourage GPL compliance. I will continue to do so.
I think that reducing the legal uncertainty involved with using GPL software increases the likelihood of adoption and compliance. This is in stark contrast to the direction that the SFC has taken with their re-compliance requirements.
What Matthew argues here is that the ends justify the means, in terms of GPL enforcement. I respectfully disagree.
-- Tim Bird