I’m just calmly pointing out the absurdity of someone releasing software they call “free” then coming back and making demands from those who took it. If it’s not actually “free” they shouldn’t be claiming it is, but it is typical of leftist nutjobs like Stallman to pull such tricks.
Hmm I looked at the website for busybox and in the about I dont see 'This software is free' I see this:
"Anyone thinking of shipping BusyBox as part of a product should be familiar with the licensing terms under which they are allowed to use and distribute BusyBox. Read the full test of the GPL (either through the above link, or in the file LICENSE in the busybox tarball), and also read the Frequently Asked Questions about the GPL." -- http://www.busybox.net/license.html
"Basically, if you distribute GPL software the license requires that you also distribute the source code to that GPL-licensed software. So if you distribute BusyBox without making the source code to the version you distribute available, you violate the license terms, and thus infringe on the copyrights of BusyBox. (This requirement applies whether or not you modified BusyBox; either way the license terms still apply to you.) Read the license text for the details." -- http://www.busybox.net/license.html
I just spent two minutes on their site and got this much information.
Whatever the license might be 'called' the terms that the copyright holders put on the software is *crystal* clear.
Now this is not the first time you have advocated stripping away copyrights for folks who choose a license you dont like and I suspect it wont be the last but no matter how you spin it you're are playing 'some animals are more equal than others' game