<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Larry Rosen wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Is anything else required under the GPL or by the Busybox copyright owners? Specifically, is any of my client's proprietary software subject to disclosure? Must my client help anyone -- through product documentation or the disclosure of his proprietary code that he has purposely linked statically to Busybox -- to replace or upgrade Busybox itself in those millions of distributed proprietary wireless devices?</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
I am aware of a number of negotiations with Bradley Kuhn regarding
Busybox and uClibc enforcement. Bradley was not representing my
interest. When I was involved, I was working for the manufacturer's
attorney and had waived my own copyright interest with regard to
that customer. Some of the cases I know of played out before my
involvement with that customer, and some with my direct involvement.<br>
<br>
The parties didn't wish to contest whether they were in compliance
or not. They instead took the route of requesting forgiveness for
infringement as a settlement or before a suit was filed, since the
terms to get that forgiveness end up being far less expensive than
fighting the case.<br>
<br>
In order to get this forgiveness, all parties that I know of have
been required to provide complete and corresponding source code for
<i>all </i>software with a Free Software license in the system,
regardless of its connection with Busybox or whether SFC or SFLC was
representing the interest of the developers of that software.<br>
<br>
When there was static linking to uClibc, it had to become dynamic.<br>
<br>
Parties had to provide source code for run-time loaded kernel
drivers.<br>
<br>
Once a set of Complete and Corresponding Source Code for a release
was constructed, that release was made available to customers as an
update, and I suspect was automatically updated in some devices. I
have not heard that anyone was required to cause every customer to
update.<br>
<br>
In all cases, Bradley was reasonable and a pleasure to work with.
When he became overloaded and was unable to respond to companies in
time, he did not enforce upon those companies obligations that he
otherwise could have.<br>
<br>
Of course, Larry, I understand that this is not what you think
should happen. However, it appears to be how a lawsuit or something
that could have become a lawsuit has been resolved, in every case
that I know of.<br>
<br>
Thanks<br>
<br>
Bruce<br>
<br>
On 03/02/2012 11:13 AM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:08db01ccf8a8$92ecfa20$b8c6ee60$@com"
type="cite">Is anything else required under the GPL or by the
Busybox copyright owners? Specifically, is any of my client's
proprietary software subject to disclosure? Must my client help
anyone -- through product documentation or the disclosure of his
proprietary code that he has purposely linked statically to
Busybox -- to replace or upgrade Busybox itself in those millions
of distributed proprietary wireless devices?<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>