about licenses, GPLv2 vs GPLv2 or later

[Glenn L. McGrath]

On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 19:56:42 -0400
Rich Felker <dalias at aerifal.cx> wrote:

> Licensing under v2 only is VERY VERY BAD. It means that unless you get
> all authors to agree to change in the future, you will never be able
> to link BB with code that's under GPL v3.

In the past i have placed code under GPL v2 only because i didnt trust
the FSF to be true to their word, mostly because if the GFDL debacle,
the FSF seems to think the freedoms required to protect the Freedoms of
software are much different than those required to protect
documentation.

In retrospect my mistrust of the FSF about licensing of non-software
works doesnt effect my trust in them on software licensing.

I permit any contributions i have made to busybox as GPL v2 only to be
relicensed as GPLv2 or later.

>From a grep this only effects the following two files, but in case
there is ever any doubt, consider this to apply to all of my previous
busybox contributions.

coreutils/uudecode.c
archival/bunzip2.c


Glenn
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 200 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/attachments/20060417/90e3384c/attachment-0002.pgp