[PATCH] new applet: nmeter

Rob Landley rob at landley.net
Thu Aug 24 18:34:52 UTC 2006


On Thursday 24 August 2006 11:38 am, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 04:41:21PM -0400, Rob Landley wrote:
> > On Tuesday 22 August 2006 9:49 pm, Rich Felker wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 05:17:39PM -0400, Rob Landley wrote:
> > > > If you want to hold off on merging this patch after GPLv3 ships, we'll 
> > > > probably have gone GPLv2 only at that point.  But right now, we're 
holding 
> > > 
> > > May I ask one final time, WHY? What advantage do you get by preventing
> > > people from using the code under GPLv3 as well as GPLv2?
> > 
> > 1) Right now we can't merge GPLv2 only code (which is a real world problem 
for 
> > us since it means that not only can we not take stuff like the diethotplug 
> > code, but the portion of the kernel headers we sucked into loop.c are 
legally 
> > questionable.).  We also can't merge GPLv3 only code, and never will be 
able 
> > to, not that this has ever mattered.  So having both licenses limits the 
> > number of sources we can take from.
> 
> There's no reason that you can't allow distribution under "v2 or
> later" for all files for which that is possible, and put the "v2 only"
> restriction only on files that were "v2 only" upstream.

This would be "mere aggregation"?  With the same makefile producing a binary 
from an arbitrary subset of them?

If I do that, I consider BusyBox binaries to be GPLv2 only, so the "or later" 
becomes meaningless.  All of BusyBox needs to be under the same license if we 
ever want to actually _enforce_ that license.

> However like I 
> said it's fundamentally petty political bickering to put "v2 only" on
> a source and these upstream people should think hard about why they
> insist on "v2 only".

They did.  And I'm thinking hard now, _before_ making a decision on this.  You 
really don't seem to be helping.

> > 2) Since the Linux kernel rejected it, it seems unlikely to have 
particularly 
> > widespread adoption, so the upside of going through _any_ pain to keep 
> > compatability with it is nonexistent.
> 
> Why? Linux is a very small portion of free software

*blink*

> and already has very strange opinions about licensing.

*blink* *blink*

> Or are you just talking about 
> herd mentality? (Please excuse the bad pun. :)

You know what?

I'm not going to put you back in the spam filter, but I think I'm going to 
stop reading your messages, which accounts to the same thing.

Rob
-- 
Never bet against the cheap plastic solution.



More information about the busybox mailing list