Re: Notice of MIT License violation by Roberto Foglietta

On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 at 05:29, David Leonard via busybox
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 26 Apr 2026, Jody Bruchon via busybox wrote:
> > This email is official notice of violation of the terms of the MIT License.
> > The following change removes legally mandatory copyright notices and the
> > code in violation is being publicly distributed:
> >
> > https://github.com/robang74/busybox/commit/97e3b97e616e72ca4224dcbdaffd41474bea5ca8
> >

The supposedly violation of the license is because the remove of this print out:

      printf("\nCopyright (C) 2015-2019 by Jody Bruchon
<[email protected]>\n");

but in the same commit (and all the others) the license and authors
are presented in the original form

https://github.com/robang74/busybox/blob/97e3b97e616e72ca4224dcbdaffd41474bea5ca8/miscutils/jdupes.c

After all, the only way in which that "software" is delivered is the
source code thus is fine in that way.

A violation of a license is supposed to happen when a real-value and a
worthy case happens, not just by inflated ego deflating.

Otherwise the same printing should report all the contributors and
previous authors and in busybox would be printing the whole AUTHORS
file, at least.

So, if a violation exists, then jody did beforehand avoid reporting
that printing the original author and in removing that printing I
forced people to check in the source all the chain of authorships and
licensing. Therefore, paradoxically the only change that should be
done is into busybox versioning, appending -raf to the versioning.
Because the v1.38 does not exist but is just a text string into
various different source codes, it makes no sense either, especially
because each branch of my repository can or cannot compile
independently by the master.

The quality and substance of this "notice" is the same as the software
I reviewed in that "jodybox" branch.


> > MIT License
>
> It is probably better that you log this as an issue at
> https://github.com/robang74/busybox/issues
> than to cc the busybox mailing list, which I think is upstream/uninvolved.
>

Yes, I agree, but if they do they are going to kill that branch
merging and it is fine they point to that achievement considering that
such a software is going to alter the btrfs at low level and
potentially tamper with critical systems. By the way, no one in their
right mind will use brtrf layering to store different firmware
versions and restore it.

Why? Because nobody sane of mind will trust btrfs complications for
granting a critical system the ability to boot (at least). For that
aim there are always two images written in two separate partitions and
the most critical/worthy cases, in two separate chips or two separate
boards. Because a single hardware failure that wipes the information
in a short but critical range of the saving device could lead to the
btrfs disruption WHEN redundancy like jdupes removes.

Finally "This email is official notice" -- go to play with the
kindergarten kids, not here, not with me. Ask the Nvidia US legal
division HOW a "final notice" could be handled by someone that can
code and knows their "spoilering legal system granted by WTO
agreements" can do. In the meantime, they can enjoy the
de-dollarisation in progress.


Best regards, R-