Re: Notice of MIT License violation by Roberto Foglietta

On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 at 07:54, Kang-Che Sung <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> Roberto only removed the copyright notice in the program output, while
> keeping the copyright notice and the MIT license text *in the source*
> intact. AFAIK, it's legal (even though it's a bad idea in ethics).

I see your critics about ethics as reasonable, in a general case but
not in a busybox applet.

Otherwise, by comparison, other authors of other applets would be
ethically defrauded by their rights.

Instead busybox which aims to a very small size (as small as possible)
concentrates everything in its general printout.

What can be improved? Here below:

roberto@x280[5]:~$ busybox
BusyBox v1.30.1 (Ubuntu 1:1.30.1-7ubuntu3.1) multi-call binary.
BusyBox is copyrighted by many authors between 1998-2015.
Licensed under GPLv2. See source distribution for detailed
copyright notices.

This is a totally generic message which can be personalised for each release:

BusyBox is copyrighted by many authors between 1998-2015. <-- 2026, hopefully

But that message means something: development has been terminated in
2015, only crontribs later. Not totally true but I see a point here.

Licensed under GPLv2. <-- OK

See source distribution for detailed copyright notices. <-- a link is
missing here.

A link that indicates: domain name, release, document

In that document license and authors are collected, therefore v1.30.1, then:

https://www.domain.name/releases/v1.30.1/LEGAL

And including that document in every binary distribution for sake of commodity.

It is a reasonable separation because who needs to use the binary is
separate from those who are in charge of fulfilling the obligation for
such a use.

IMHO, this is a better way to proceed not because of more ethics or
because the past was wrong but because it is easier for those who get
that information. And in the world of law/layers the idea of a
univocally certain single point of authorship/licensing retrieval is a
HUGE benefit. But this is for those aiming to distribute the binaries,
not those who are dealing with a source repository which by the
copyright law can also work as documental conservation. Which is a
totally different story.

I hope this helps, R-