BusyBox Goes 1.0.0 24
prostoalex writes "BusyBox, a stripped-down minimalistic toolkit for embedded Linux, is now shipping 1.0.0. ChangeLog is available on the project Web site."
Understanding is always the understanding of a smaller problem in relation to a bigger problem. -- P.D. Ouspensky
The people that make this... (Score:5, Informative)
They robbed us of a real screenshot! [busybox.net]
Obligatory (Score:5, Informative)
...link to the Hall Of Shame: http://www.busybox.net/shame.html [busybox.net]
It's a list of all the companies that use(d) BusyBox in some way without releasing the source code.
busybox is not .. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:And now we are waiting for uclibc ver 1.0 (Score:3, Informative)
Warning: use gcc-2.95.3 and Linux-2.4.x to save space.
distro (Score:5, Informative)
Let the box be busy
Re:And now we are waiting for uclibc ver 1.0 (Score:3, Informative)
The finer points of gross misunderstanding (Score:3, Informative)
Re:And now we are waiting for uclibc ver 1.0 (Score:3, Informative)
Very funny, smartass ;-)
No, it's the sound of a development engineer making embedded systems with linux, uclibc and busybox. Our system uses an Intel PXA250 CPU, with 32MB RAM and 8MB flash. BusyBox gives us plenty space left, to run our own application on the system. We have tried to build the system with glibc and the standard GNU tools, but that used almost all available RAM and flash so the system was basically useless.
No, I am not featured on the "Busybox hall of Shame" [busybox.net].
Re:Lean Kernel (Score:0, Informative)
Re:Obligatory (Score:3, Informative)
Do everyone a favor and don't break the law -- if you use busybox, comply with the busybox license by releasing the source code with your product.
This is basically correct. "Releasing the source code with your product" is perhaps less precise than what the GPL says, but it's a decent common English interpretation of it. If you release (i.e. distribute) a product, you need to include the source code to the GPLed components, and any software that links to it, under the GPL or compatible license.
As far as I can tell, none of the examples in the Hall of Shame are examples of internal "use" applications that don't involve distribution, which is perfectly legal under the GPL. All of these look at first glance like they involve distribution without written offers, or source code, and most of these cases have been documented by refusals to provide source code to GPLed components to customers in posession of the hardware in question. If that's not GPL violation, I don't know what is.
It's amazing to me that they are letting all these people run all over them. With a project that's apparently this high profile and subject to abuse, they ought to just assign copyright to the FSF and work with them to enforce their licensing terms, or find lawyers willing to help pursue at least court injunctions on sales of these products. These guys would release their source code in no time flat as soon as the phrase "injunctive relief" was uttered in a courtroom.