I.E. using vanilla unmodified code is not infringing, we just want your IMPROVEMENTS. I did't care about forcing you to mirror source tarballs like the FSF did to Mepis, or exploiting crazy loopholes. If you honestly haven't got any code we'd want, there's nothing in it for us.
17 U.S.C. ยง 106 defines rights to do or to authorize certain activities, which are held exclusively by the copyright owner. These rights include reproduction of copies, preparation of derivative works, and distribution of copies. So if a company reproduces and distributes even unmodified copies of BusyBox, it is infringing copyright unless authorized by a license. The GNU GPL allows such distribution of unmodified copies so long as a copy of source code or an offer therefor is given.
Of course I suppose that a copyright holder might form an estoppel by knowingly allowing distribution of unmodified copies of BusyBox outside the terms of the GNU GPL. But that incurs legal uncertainty for the company and its downstream recipients.
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.
Re: From the Sony engineer mentioned...
Date: 2012-01-31 09:58 pm (UTC)17 U.S.C. ยง 106 defines rights to do or to authorize certain activities, which are held exclusively by the copyright owner. These rights include reproduction of copies, preparation of derivative works, and distribution of copies. So if a company reproduces and distributes even unmodified copies of BusyBox, it is infringing copyright unless authorized by a license. The GNU GPL allows such distribution of unmodified copies so long as a copy of source code or an offer therefor is given.
Of course I suppose that a copyright holder might form an estoppel by knowingly allowing distribution of unmodified copies of BusyBox outside the terms of the GNU GPL. But that incurs legal uncertainty for the company and its downstream recipients.