BusyBox Goes 1.0.0

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."

Re:Obligatory

[Brandybuck]

The GPL does not require disclosure of source code for *use* of the software. It also does not require one to *release* the source code, only provide it to customers. The Busybox hall of shame page seems to have gross misunderstanding of the GPL.

Companies that distribute busybox as a component of an embedded system do need to make the source code available to its customers. But this is a different thing than "use". The Busybox page employs the word "use", which is in error. In addition, "releasing" the source code is not necessary, you only have to available. According to some readings of the GPL, if you don't modify the sources, you could even get away with merely providing a link to the Busybox ftp site!

Re:The finer points of gross misunderstanding

[Brandybuck]

The GPL community needs to get it through its thick skull that words have meanings. When the Busybox site has several prominent admonitions not to *use* the software, then it should surprise no one that people continue to think that the GPL restricts usage of the software.

Re:The finer points of gross misunderstanding

[Anonymous Coward]

Words have meanings which depend on the context. You can't honestly tell me that you also think "use the crapper" means that I'm going to install the crapper on my PC and run it, right? Obviously, that page is talking about those who used busybox in the development of products, and failed to hold up their end of the license bargain.