The FSF's being stupid again, it seems...

[David Daney]

Rob Landley wrote:
> So apparently the FSF's mounted a campaign to get people to switch to BSD:
> http://software.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=06/06/23/1728205&tid=150
> 
> And I just thought I'd ping the list about changing our licensing page to say 
> that if you have a statement about what exact version of busybox you used, 
> with what .config file, and that you didn't modify it, then you don't need to 
> provide the source code.
> 
> Also, if GPLv3 actually _requires_ this (rather than just having a statement 
> good for 3 years to provide the source code on request, as the GPLv2 has), 
> that would be (to me) another reason to go for V2 only.
> 
> Does anybody else have any opinions on this issue?

You seem to want to make it more difficult to obtain the source code to 
a given busybox build.  This seems at least mildly contradictory to the 
reason for the Hall of Shame (http://www.busybox.net/shame.html).

Also as a practical manner, you cannot change the license for code you 
did not write.  So you would have to verify that you were the author of 
100% of the code to do this.

Just my $0.02,
David Daney