Questions about licenses

[Roberto A. Foglietta]

2007/12/2, Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux at googlemail.com>:
> On Sunday 02 December 2007 03:35, Roberto A. Foglietta wrote:
> > Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> > > I am not a lawyer, and my answer is not authoritative.
> > >
> > > My understanding is that if you use busybox in your device,
> > > you have to provide users with means to build the same busybox
> > > from source.
> >
> >   I do not think so. Building the same busybox from sources would be
> > required if GPLv3 has been choosen. In this case distribuitor could
> > choose GPLv2 and release everything under v2 conditions which requires
> > to deliver at quasi-zero costs the source code. You would not release
> > your toolchain and/or cross compiling enviroment.
>
> What's the point in having a license which require that licensee
> provides *some* sources, but does not require that functionally equivalent
> busybox binary can be built from this source?
>
> Such license would be totally useless, as it is trivially circumvented by
> providing irrelevant source.
> Like, providing unmodified busybox-1.3.0 source but actually using patched
> busybox-1.8.2 one.
>
> I think that GPLv2 requires that licensee provides the source they actually
> use to build their binary, not some semirandom collection of text files
> with .c and .h extensions.

 Yes, you are right but... From the same source but by two different
compilers you could generate two different binaries. A great problem
of GPLv3 in embedded field is that it forces to realeas all the source
of the toolchains and cross-compiler in order to let the end-user to
run the binary in the same enviroment. GPLv2 requires only the soruce
code of the binary should released. This differece is fundamental
between v2 and v3 because I can release patches and sorces of modified
busybox but if I do not release the compiler too you could not run it
on my own device/cpu. I hope this helps in understanding my previous
mail.

 About Mike: we are not lawyer. Yes we are not but we have to know and
understand in order to choose the licence. IMHO another missed point
about v3 is: if we can not offer worldwide free of royalties patents
coverage we cannot deliver source/binary too. But in Europe and others
part of the world software patent has not any legal value and still be
possibile delivery source code by v2 for those countries. The freedom
of die in v3 did not take in account that there is a third possibility
among die free or live in slavish: change the country. Even in the
worst possible world still exist a freeland.
 :-)

 Cheers,
-- 
/roberto