>The SFC will grant a new license, but on one condition - not only must you provide the source code to Busybox, you must provide the source code to all other works on the device that require source distribution.
fair as long as theother rightsholders involved are informed..... it is their choice whether or not to force the license issue - for all we know they decided to let sony have software X..... if this is done without implicit cooperation with other rightsholders, its sort of stretching......
If Sony has received licenses to software X, then there's no problem:
> "you must provide the source code to all other works on the device that require source distribution"
If Sony has a different license from the copyright holders of software X that means they're not required to distribute source, presumably all they need to do is produce that license if their claim is challenged, or get said copyright holders to confirm it.
for all we know they decided to let sony have software X....
If they did, there should be evidence (a licensing agreement, perhaps) of that decision. If there's no formal agreement, the existing license has authority, and it's perfectly reasonable for the SFC to require adherence to the licenses of other packages used as a condition of re-licensing BusyBox to the infringing party.
Wait what? This has actually happened?