BusyBox创始人就GPL诉讼发表声明
2009-12-28 10:03:56 
阿炯
2009年12月报道了《软件自由法律中心起诉三星等违反GPL的企业》，其中软件自由法律中心起诉这些企业违反GPL软件对象便是BusyBox。这个软件的创始人叫Bruce Perens，但身为创始人，却对此事一无不知，在他的博客申明中，我们找到了一些答案。
先来了解一下BusyBox的历史，根据Wikipedia介绍：
1996年Bruce Perens创建了BusyBox，这款软件最早的目的是建立一个可引导的软盘系统，用来急救磁盘和安装Debian操作系统，后来成了嵌入式Linux 设备和Linux发行版安装事实上的标准。早在1998年BusyBox由Enrique Zanardi维护，主要专注Debian软盘引导安装系统。后来由Dave Cinege接管，用于Linux路由项目Linux Router Project (LRP)，Cinege增加了若干个功能，建立了模块化构建环境，将BusyBox变成通用嵌入式系统。 1999年随着LRP项目发展减慢，后来由Lineo公司的Erik Andersen正式接管项目，它维护了近7年时间（1999至2006），在那期间嵌入式Linux市场非常火爆，BusyBox增长迅速。目前由 Denys Vlasenko担任BusyBox的维护者。
未接到通知，不知情
根据创始人Bruce Perens的申明，他说：“首先我想指出我并不代表这次法律诉讼，有关各方及软件自由法律中心并没有试图联系我。据我所知，并根据律师的意见，我仍然持有Busybox内容及编辑版权。目前的Busybox发展是对我当初项目工作的延续，当前大量的代码库中仍是我版权代码的衍生品。”
支持GPL
对于违反GPL的企业，Bruce Perens表示支持软件自由法律中心的请求，他说：“本次法律诉讼的基本要求是所有当事人发布包含基于GPL发布的软件都必须遵守GPL许可证。我支持这种请求。GPL条款非常简单，许多公司都这样做。例如索尼公司的源代码发布，请查看http://products.sel.sony.com /opensource/ 索尼公司在他们上百个电视型号和其它产品中嵌入这些代码，并很简单的发布源代码，一点也不困难。”
抱怨某些人将自己版权申明去掉
BusyBox作者和最早的维护者是Bruce Perens，还包括了其它开发贡献者，后来BusyBox的维护者一代一代传下去，也包括了Erik Anderson（这次法律诉讼由Erik Anderson先生和自由软件法律中心提起）
“当前的法律原告是以Erik Andersen为名。Erik曾在一个嵌入式Linux公司工作，现在已倒闭了，在那期间BusyBox由他来维系。”Bruce Perens说，“在那期间公司的名称出现在版权声明中，而我却消失了。”
同时Bruce Perens还抱怨软件自由法律中心，这个代表开发者的利益的组织，却代表了个别人的意见。对Erik Anderson（BusyBox1999至2006年的维护者）将原先的版权申明去掉的做法，表示不理解。
争议
此事在slashdot.org也引起了争议，在这里可以找到更加详细的答案。
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BusyBox法律诉讼申明全文
Statement on Busybox Lawsuits
Bruce Perens
I am the creator of the Busybox program which is currently subject to lawsuits brought by Mr. Erik Andersen and the Software Freedom Law Center, and which was subject to previous suits brought by SFLC, Mr. Andersen and Mr. Robert Landley.
First, I’d like to point out that I’m not represented in these lawsuits, and that the parties and the Software Freedom Law Center have never attempted to contact me with regard to them. As far as I am aware, and under advice of various attorneys, I still hold an interest in Busybox through both content and compilation copyrights. As present Busybox development is a direct continuation of my original work on the project, much of the current code base is a derivative work of my copyrighted code.
The basic claim of the lawsuits is that the GPL license terms must be followed by all parties that distribute works containing GPL software. I support this claim. The GPL terms are simple and are complied with by many companies. For example, see the distribution of source code by SONY at http://products.sel.sony.com/opensource/ . This straightforward distribution of the source code embedded in hundreds of their television models and other products doesn’t appear to cause them any hardship.
Busybox does not endanger the proprietary software of any company that makes the most trivial effort to comply with its license. Such software need only be placed in a separate executable file from Busybox, and will thus be insulated from any license obligations of Busybox. These companies are obligated to distribute the Busybox source code, not their own source code, and to provide the Busybox license statement where appropriate. Thus, companies don’t fall out of compliance with the GPL license on the busybox software unless they fail to exercise the slightest bit of due diligence, and then fail to respond appropriately when contacted by copyright holders who seek to remedy the situation. It is only after protracted failure to respond that non-compliant parties are pursued for damages.
In short, nobody violates the Busybox license (or indeed any Free Software license) for a smart reason.
Unfortunately, all of this is confusing my strategic consulting customers. Thus, I will offer them a waiver of my interest where appropriate. I will also offer a waiver to those companies that use my assistance in coming in to compliance with the Busybox license, at my usual consulting rate for that assistance rather than “damages” related to my copyright, regardless of their past or present infringement.
I have some complaints regarding Mr. Andersen, Mr. Landley, and the Software Freedom Law Center.
SFLC, which is supposed to represent Free Software developers without charge and without prejudice, seems to have been selective in which of the Busybox developers it chooses to represent, and has in the past been either guarded or hostile in its correspondence when contacted by other developers of the Busybox program.
The version 0.60.3 of Busybox upon which Mr. Andersen claims copyright registration in the lawsuits is to a great extent my own work and that of other developers. I am not party to the registration. It is not at all clear that Mr. Andersen holds a majority interest in that work.
Mr. Andersen, his past employers and Mr. Landley appear to have removed some of the copyright statements of other Busybox developers, and appear to have altered license statements, in apparent violation of various laws. Mr. Landley once claimed that all of my contribution had been completely removed from the Busybox program, using a misinterpretation of Judge Walker’s methods for identifying non-literal copying to justify his claim. As far as I’m aware, he was incorrect.
Much as other Busybox developers wish to support the general cause of getting companies to comply with simple Free Software Licenses, some of the other developers and I are becoming annoyed with Mr. Andersen and Mr. Landley’s apparent violation of our own rights, and SFLC’s treatment of our interest. We have held off, to date, to avoid confusing issues, but our patience is limited.
Bruce Perens
信息源自：Osss.cn开源社区
先来了解一下BusyBox的历史，根据Wikipedia介绍：
1996年Bruce Perens创建了BusyBox，这款软件最早的目的是建立一个可引导的软盘系统，用来急救磁盘和安装Debian操作系统，后来成了嵌入式Linux 设备和Linux发行版安装事实上的标准。早在1998年BusyBox由Enrique Zanardi维护，主要专注Debian软盘引导安装系统。后来由Dave Cinege接管，用于Linux路由项目Linux Router Project (LRP)，Cinege增加了若干个功能，建立了模块化构建环境，将BusyBox变成通用嵌入式系统。 1999年随着LRP项目发展减慢，后来由Lineo公司的Erik Andersen正式接管项目，它维护了近7年时间（1999至2006），在那期间嵌入式Linux市场非常火爆，BusyBox增长迅速。目前由 Denys Vlasenko担任BusyBox的维护者。
未接到通知，不知情
根据创始人Bruce Perens的申明，他说：“首先我想指出我并不代表这次法律诉讼，有关各方及软件自由法律中心并没有试图联系我。据我所知，并根据律师的意见，我仍然持有Busybox内容及编辑版权。目前的Busybox发展是对我当初项目工作的延续，当前大量的代码库中仍是我版权代码的衍生品。”
支持GPL
对于违反GPL的企业，Bruce Perens表示支持软件自由法律中心的请求，他说：“本次法律诉讼的基本要求是所有当事人发布包含基于GPL发布的软件都必须遵守GPL许可证。我支持这种请求。GPL条款非常简单，许多公司都这样做。例如索尼公司的源代码发布，请查看http://products.sel.sony.com /opensource/ 索尼公司在他们上百个电视型号和其它产品中嵌入这些代码，并很简单的发布源代码，一点也不困难。”
抱怨某些人将自己版权申明去掉
BusyBox作者和最早的维护者是Bruce Perens，还包括了其它开发贡献者，后来BusyBox的维护者一代一代传下去，也包括了Erik Anderson（这次法律诉讼由Erik Anderson先生和自由软件法律中心提起）
“当前的法律原告是以Erik Andersen为名。Erik曾在一个嵌入式Linux公司工作，现在已倒闭了，在那期间BusyBox由他来维系。”Bruce Perens说，“在那期间公司的名称出现在版权声明中，而我却消失了。”
同时Bruce Perens还抱怨软件自由法律中心，这个代表开发者的利益的组织，却代表了个别人的意见。对Erik Anderson（BusyBox1999至2006年的维护者）将原先的版权申明去掉的做法，表示不理解。
争议
此事在slashdot.org也引起了争议，在这里可以找到更加详细的答案。
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BusyBox法律诉讼申明全文
Statement on Busybox Lawsuits
Bruce Perens
I am the creator of the Busybox program which is currently subject to lawsuits brought by Mr. Erik Andersen and the Software Freedom Law Center, and which was subject to previous suits brought by SFLC, Mr. Andersen and Mr. Robert Landley.
First, I’d like to point out that I’m not represented in these lawsuits, and that the parties and the Software Freedom Law Center have never attempted to contact me with regard to them. As far as I am aware, and under advice of various attorneys, I still hold an interest in Busybox through both content and compilation copyrights. As present Busybox development is a direct continuation of my original work on the project, much of the current code base is a derivative work of my copyrighted code.
The basic claim of the lawsuits is that the GPL license terms must be followed by all parties that distribute works containing GPL software. I support this claim. The GPL terms are simple and are complied with by many companies. For example, see the distribution of source code by SONY at http://products.sel.sony.com/opensource/ . This straightforward distribution of the source code embedded in hundreds of their television models and other products doesn’t appear to cause them any hardship.
Busybox does not endanger the proprietary software of any company that makes the most trivial effort to comply with its license. Such software need only be placed in a separate executable file from Busybox, and will thus be insulated from any license obligations of Busybox. These companies are obligated to distribute the Busybox source code, not their own source code, and to provide the Busybox license statement where appropriate. Thus, companies don’t fall out of compliance with the GPL license on the busybox software unless they fail to exercise the slightest bit of due diligence, and then fail to respond appropriately when contacted by copyright holders who seek to remedy the situation. It is only after protracted failure to respond that non-compliant parties are pursued for damages.
In short, nobody violates the Busybox license (or indeed any Free Software license) for a smart reason.
Unfortunately, all of this is confusing my strategic consulting customers. Thus, I will offer them a waiver of my interest where appropriate. I will also offer a waiver to those companies that use my assistance in coming in to compliance with the Busybox license, at my usual consulting rate for that assistance rather than “damages” related to my copyright, regardless of their past or present infringement.
I have some complaints regarding Mr. Andersen, Mr. Landley, and the Software Freedom Law Center.
SFLC, which is supposed to represent Free Software developers without charge and without prejudice, seems to have been selective in which of the Busybox developers it chooses to represent, and has in the past been either guarded or hostile in its correspondence when contacted by other developers of the Busybox program.
The version 0.60.3 of Busybox upon which Mr. Andersen claims copyright registration in the lawsuits is to a great extent my own work and that of other developers. I am not party to the registration. It is not at all clear that Mr. Andersen holds a majority interest in that work.
Mr. Andersen, his past employers and Mr. Landley appear to have removed some of the copyright statements of other Busybox developers, and appear to have altered license statements, in apparent violation of various laws. Mr. Landley once claimed that all of my contribution had been completely removed from the Busybox program, using a misinterpretation of Judge Walker’s methods for identifying non-literal copying to justify his claim. As far as I’m aware, he was incorrect.
Much as other Busybox developers wish to support the general cause of getting companies to comply with simple Free Software Licenses, some of the other developers and I are becoming annoyed with Mr. Andersen and Mr. Landley’s apparent violation of our own rights, and SFLC’s treatment of our interest. We have held off, to date, to avoid confusing issues, but our patience is limited.
Bruce Perens
信息源自：Osss.cn开源社区