●Stories
●Firehose
●All
●Popular
●Polls
●Software
●Thought Leadership
Submit
●
Login
●or
●
Sign up
●Topics:
●Devices
●Build
●Entertainment
●Technology
●Open Source
●Science
●YRO
●Follow us:
●RSS
●Facebook
●LinkedIn
●Twitter
●
Youtube
●
Mastodon
●Bluesky
Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system
Forgot your password?
Close
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Load All Comments
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
/Sea
Score:
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
More
Login
Forgot your password?
Close
Close
Log In/Create an Account
●
All
●
Insightful
●
Informative
●
Interesting
●
Funny
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
byJazzXP ( 770338 ) writes:
Isn't this the first proper test of GPL in a court of law?
byeldavojohn ( 898314 ) * writes:
Isn't this the first proper test of GPL in a court of law?
I'm not a lawyer so maybe I'm not understanding the weight of "first proper test" but there have been many court cases [wikipedia.org] I think most are settled out of court though. Example:
In 2002, MySQL AB sued Progress NuSphere for copyright and trademark infringement in United States district court. NuSphere had allegedly violated MySQL's copyright by linking code for the Gemini table type into the MySQL server. After a preliminary hearing before Judge Patti Saris on February 27, 2002, the parties entered settlement talks and eventually settled. At the hearing, Judge Saris "saw no reason" that the GPL would not be enforceable.
This might be the first one inside the United States to come down to a court decision without being short circuited by a settlement, yes. Keep in mind that they claim to find one violation per day [slashdot.org] so it's awfully kind of them to give years worth of warning before starting to take legal action. I'm sure that if someone with money reall
byAndy Dodd ( 701 ) writes:
It would've been pretty easy to fully comply with the GPL in this situation without giving anything of substance away to competitors.
There's no reason to be afraid of using GPLed code as long as you actually READ THE DAMN LICENSE and comply. For something like busybox there is almost no one who would suffer any competitive disadvantage by publishing the source code for the GPL software used in compliance with the license, and a pretty good market advantage (don't have to develop any of the basic functions busybox provides, so you can focus on developing the product-specific functionality).
Parent
twitter
facebook
byudippel ( 562132 ) writes:
If only I had mod points ... !
Now I even endanger my karma; but I can take a hit.
This is just too beautifully written. Have heard this really, really stupid argument just too often over the years. What the hell are your competitors to do with your code on their hardware? Except your name is Steve The Maniac of Cupertino. Of course.
byb4dc0d3r ( 1268512 ) writes:
The source code itself probably won't run as-is on different hardware, but there are clues and hints and subtleties that can be copied. A more efficient algorithm for this, or a creative way of doing that. Something clever like Carmack's inverse square root which most sane people would shy away from until proven are great examples. An efficient, error-tolerant input achieved by creative hit testing might give your interface usability advantages.
Clever ordering might save users from the problem I have whe
byEunuchswear ( 210685 ) writes:
The source code itself probably won't run as-is on different hardware, but there are clues and hints and subtleties that can be copied. A more efficient algorithm for this, or a creative way of doing that.
In Busybox?
Just because you've got busybox in your TV doesn't mean you have to give away the source code to the rest of it.
byAndy Dodd ( 701 ) writes:
OK, name a single one of the functions you described that would be handled by busybox.
Just because one component (busybox) to handle basic OS housekeeping functions is open source doesn't mean your main application (the TV stuff) has to be. That was my whole point. You can save a LOT of development time on OS housekeeping type stuff with busybox, and then publish that source code in compliance with the license and your competitors get NOTHING, because the stuff that matters is in another fully independent software component that does not fall under the GPL.
Parent
twitter
facebook
bycommodore64_love ( 1445365 ) writes:
+1 for this whole thread.
I wondered what Westinghouse had violated, and now I know - failed to publish the open source code for BusyBox. Also good to know they didn't have to publish their own self-developed proprietary code. It's pretty stupid Westinghouse chose to fight the GPL instead of simply complying with it.
byAndy Dodd ( 701 ) writes:
Yeah. Everything I have read has indicated that Westinghouse followed a process/policy of "epic stupidity", and likely would have been in even worse trouble had they used a proprietary solution.
bydrsmithy ( 35869 ) writes:
Have heard this really, really stupid argument just too often over the years. What the hell are your competitors to do with your code on their hardware?
Everything your product does without having to spend time and money figuring out how ?
●ent threshold.
●nt threshold.
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
Slashdot
●
●
Submit Story
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
-- Roy Santoro
●FAQ
●Story Archive
●Hall of Fame
●Advertising
●Terms
●Privacy Statement
●About
●Feedback
●Mobile View
●Blog
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...
Working...