Amusing article about busybox

[Felipe Contreras]

On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 11:02 PM, Cathey, Jim <jcathey at ciena.com> wrote:
> My (lay) understanding of this is that there are two separate
> issues:
>
> 1) Company contributes (back) to the project.
> 2) Company provides sources of whatever they did.
>
> Obviously #1 is preferable, assuming the mods are palatable,
> but only #2 is required.  It would take an interested (and
> possibly third) party to fold #2's back to #1's.
>
> All this discussion seems to be focused on #1, but Sony
> is (?) in the #2 camp.  Unless maybe they're in #3:
>
> 3) Company takes sources and never exhibits its modifications.
>
> I thought that only #3's were liable.  #2's are merely annoying.

The problem is that the whole Sony would be liable, even if only parts
of it did #3 (by mistake), and other parts did their duty, even #1.

 % git log --author="sony.com" --oneline | wc -l
 190

At least they seem to be doing something for the Linux kernel, so I
don't buy this "Sony" wants to do something illegal (#3).

Cheers.

-- 
Felipe Contreras