Amusing article about busybox

[Felipe Contreras]

On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Laurent Bercot <ska-dietlibc at skarnet.org> wrote:
>> Some of the arguments from the "other side" found in that
>> thread make sense. We are possibly a bit too aggressive
>> when we try to force people to comply with GPL
>> on other projects too, not only on bbox.
>
>  Good quality alternatives are a good thing. If Rob starts his
> Toybox project again, more power to him. If users - whether they
> are individuals or companies - can choose between two similar
> implementations of the same stuff, everyone benefits.
>
>  The unfortunate reality is that most companies *really don't want*
> to release their source code. They will either refuse to have
> anything to do with copylefted software, or infringe the copyleft
> more or less blatantly. The "return something to the community"
> idea just does not work with them.

Companies want to do what companies want to do. If a license really
tries to make them do something they don't want to, then they won't
use the software. Period.

I think that's a mistake many 'free software' advocates make is that a
license would somehow make companies be good community members. That's
not the case.

If Sony doesn't want to contribute, that's probably a mistake, but
they are free to make that mistake, and they would do it regardless of
what Matthew Garrett says.

>  So, GPL inforcement is a good thing, but as time goes by, companies
> will turn away more and more from copylefted software, and use more
> and more open source, non copylefted software. I am afraid that the
> uncompromising, unforgiving nature of the GPL will turn against it
> in the future, and harm more than promote widespread distribution of
> GPL'ed software - something that GPL zealots generally refuse to see.

Totally agree. But GPLv3, not GPLv2, or even better LGPL, which seems
to be fine.

Cheers.

-- 
Felipe Contreras