Talk:BusyBox

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the BusyBox article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Add new text under old text. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Start a new topic Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 12 months

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing: Software / Free and open-source software Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Software. This article is supported by Free and open-source software (assessed as Low-importance).

"or example just

   /bin/ls

after /bin/ls is linked to /bin/busybox." I think there should be an additional 'ls' in the end - like '/bin/busybox ls'

I thought the way BusyBox worked was that 'ls' and friends were symlinked to /bin/busybox and then when the binary was run, it figured out under what name it was called and then manifested appropriate behavior? --Gwern (contribs) 19:13 7 June 2007 (GMT)

It works both ways. "ln -s /bin/busybox /bin/ls; /bin/ls > test1; /bin/busybox ls > test2; cmp test1 test2 || echo wtf;"

WRT "It runs in many POSIX environments including Linux, Android, and FreeBSD, although many of the tools it provides are designed to work with interfaces provided by the Linux kernel"

Paraphrase: It runs environments including Linux although many tools it provides are designed to work with Linux. Huh? The 'although' implies a contradiction. But, I see none WRT Linux. And since Android _is_ Linux, no contradiction there either. Is this supposed to only be something that apples to FreeBSD? Maybe it's supposed to be like: "It runs in many POSIX environments. Although designed to work with Linux kernel interfaces, it supports some non-Linux systems including FreeBSD." Stevebroshar (talk) 22:11, 23 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Could we get a source and footnote specifically for the controversy mentioned in the intro? It currently says a lot without a reference.

"after controversially deciding not to move to version 3."

-- Semitones (talk) 01:13, 8 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Semitones from what i can gather from busybox's license page, it wasn't much of a "controversial decision" as it was a "we include GPLv2-only code and are thus necessarily GPLv2" thing, so we should probably remove that text. ~2025-35814-24 (talk) 10:40, 23 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Did some editor think controversies was just a synonym for disagreements or something? That’s the only explanation I can think of that actually makes sense of how the word is used in this article. —~2026-22804-20 (talk) 00:46, 14 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

I am removing a couple refs from this paragraph from § GPLv2/GPLv3 controversies, saving them here in case there’s a use for them. The first one doesn’t seem to contain anything relating to the cited claim, and I honestly have no idea why you’d need two sources to verify the name of BusyBox or what work they’re meant to do there.

In September 2006, after heavy discussions and controversies between project maintainer Rob Landley and Bruce Perens,^[1] the BusyBox^[2][3] project decided against adopting the GNU General Public License Version 3 (GPLv3); the BusyBox license was clarified as being GPL-2.0-only.^[4]

1. ^ Bruce Perens (December 15, 2009). "Statement on Busybox Lawsuits". Archived from the original on 2009-12-20.
2. ^ Corbet, Jonathan (2006-10-01). "Busy busy busybox". LWN.net. Archived from the original on January 7, 2016. Retrieved 2015-11-21. Since BusyBox can be found in so many embedded systems, it finds itself at the core of the GPLv3 anti-DRM debate. [...]The real outcomes, however, are this: BusyBox will be GPLv2 only starting with the next release. It is generally accepted that stripping out the "or any later version" is legally defensible, and that the merging of other GPLv2-only code will force that issue in any case
3. ^ Landley, Rob (2006-09-09). "Re: Move GPLv2 vs v3 fun…". lwn.net. Archived from the original on September 16, 2017. Retrieved 2015-11-21. Don't invent a straw man argument please. I consider licensing BusyBox under GPLv3 to be useless, unnecessary, overcomplicated, and confusing, and in addition to that it has actual downsides. 1) Useless: We're never dropping GPLv2.
4. ^ GPL version 2 only for BusyBox 1.3.0. Archived September 14, 2016, at the Wayback Machine on lwn.net

—~2026-96601-1 (talk) 21:57, 13 April 2026 (UTC)Reply