The ongoing fight against GPL enforcement
Maybe I misunderstood, but I'm not seeing how this is bad.<p>Sony wants to write a BusyBox that doesn't use BusyBox's license?  What exactly is the problem?  If they don't like the license isn't that the best approach they can take?<p>"A couple of weeks ago, this page appeared on the elinux.org wiki. It's written by an engineer at Sony, and it's calling for contributions to rewriting Busybox. This would be entirely reasonable if it were for technical reasons, but it's not - it's explicitly stated that companies are afraid that Busybox copyright holders may force them to comply with the licenses of software they ship. If you ship this Busybox replacement instead of the original Busybox you'll be safe from the SFC. You'll be able to violate licenses with impunity."<p>Wait, didn't GNU and the GPL start off for the completely non-technical reason that Stallman didn't like the original license?<p>I'm also not sure I like the idea of using BusyBox as a backdoor to examine the rest of a product's source code.  I didn't realize that was a condition of the GPL, but it makes me glad I've switched most of my projects over to the BSD and ISC licenses.