should all BB code be GPL?
Rob Landley
rob at landley.net
Wed Jul 12 16:06:35 UTC 2006
On Wednesday 12 July 2006 9:11 am, Paul Fox wrote:
> > On Tue, 11 Jul 2006, Rob Landley wrote:
> > > On Monday 10 July 2006 7:20 am, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > > > i was just about to write a perl script to go through the source
> > > > files and replace any GPL-related verbosity with the single-line
> > > > boilerplate for brevity until i read this in
> > > > libbb/change_identity.c (sorry about the ugly re-formatting, you
> > > > can blame pine):
> > >
> > > All busybox code _is_ GPL. If it isn't, we can't ship it in a GPL
> > > project.
> >
> > ok, then, so i can fire up a script and replace all other licensing
> > crap in BB source files with that one-line boilerplate, then?
>
> i don't understand. the tinylogin distribution, on which much of
> the busybox login stuff is based, is pretty clear about having a
> BSD-style license, with restrictions that copyright notices
> appear both in the source and the documentation. we can
> certainly GPL the code, but don't we have to continue honoring
> julianne haugh's "advertising clause"?
I already planned to remove his code in the passwd rewrite I started during
1.1, but that's because we don't need it. Passwd and shadow can use common
code. (Parsing colon-separated text is not brain surgery.)
> (and, i certainly hope you weren't planning on dropping the Copyright
> notices altogether.)
Of course not. Copyright notices are different from licensing statements. A
license applies to the copyright, it doesn't transfer copyrights. So who
owns the copyright is still important information to have a valid license to
that copyright.
Rob
--
Never bet against the cheap plastic solution.
More information about the busybox
mailing list