Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 14th Dec 2009 23:56 UTC
GNU, GPL, Open Source "On behalf of the developers behind the open source BusyBox project, the Software Freedom Law Center has launched a major lawsuit against 14 consumer electronics companies. According to a complaint filed by the SFLC, the companies named in the suit failed to comply with the requirements of GNU's General Public License, the free software license under which the BusyBox code is distributed."
Thread beginning with comment 399597
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Good!
by Junius on Tue 15th Dec 2009 03:00 UTC
Junius
Member since:
2009-10-25

It may sound cheesy but it kind of restores your faith in people when you see organisations like the SFLC fighting for the little guy like this.

Although having said that, it's still very annoying to see companies like Samsung; who really should no better, violating the GPL and taking hard working developers for a ride.

I know it's the materialist capitalist system that encourages this kind of behaviour but that's not an excuse. Thank you SFLC! I'll be having a pint in your honour tonight.

Just out of curiosity; I read on wikipedia that busybox is in the bthomehub? I don't recall being offered the source or a copy of the GPLv2 when I received my hub. Does anybody have any info on this?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Good!
by flanque on Tue 15th Dec 2009 03:05 in reply to "Good!"
flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

BusyBox is used in so many spaces, many of which I cannot find source code for.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE: Good!
by Laurence on Tue 15th Dec 2009 08:13 in reply to "Good!"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Just out of curiosity; I read on wikipedia that busybox is in the bthomehub? I don't recall being offered the source or a copy of the GPLv2 when I received my hub. Does anybody have any info on this?


If that's the case, then why is the bthomehub so fraking crappy?

I'm seriously close to chucking out unit in place for a cheapy netgear that I know will at least pick up my virtual machines force an IP into the DCHP reserve list or can actually display virtual machines rather than not listing them altogether because they share the same network interfaces MAC address.

Plus the web interface on bthomehub as very poorly thought out:
It's bent so far towards idiots that it takes about 5 clicks (as opposed to 2 on netgears) just to bring up so genuinely useful information.
While I understand the point of simplifying devices for the non-techies - there is a point where you have to ask yourself if you've over dumbed down an interface that's actually mainly going to be used by technically minded people anyway (as BT have done in this instance)


So if bthomehub is based on GPL code (and bt have made the router hackable) then I know what I'm doing tonight....

[edit]

upon googling, it seems I missed the point of BusyBox (I thought it was a distro aimed towards routers rather than an application). *blush*

Edited 2009-12-15 08:22 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Good!
by 3rdalbum on Tue 15th Dec 2009 10:19 in reply to "RE: Good!"
3rdalbum Member since:
2008-05-26

"Just out of curiosity; I read on wikipedia that busybox is in the bthomehub? I don't recall being offered the source or a copy of the GPLv2 when I received my hub. Does anybody have any info on this?


If that's the case, then why is the bthomehub so fraking crappy?

So if bthomehub is based on GPL code (and bt have made the router hackable) then I know what I'm doing tonight....
"

From what I read, you can connect to the Home Hub through Telnet to change some low-level settings. Unfortunately, those dicks at iPrimus disabled the telnet ability which makes it really annoying to implement into an existing network. That's my only quarrel with iPrimus as an ISP.

And yes, the user interface is absolutely horrible.

Reply Parent Score: 2