Move GPLv2 vs v3 fun...
Rob Landley
rob at landley.net
Fri Sep 8 17:52:54 UTC 2006
So I'm looking at the patch attached to bug 999, and guess what I notice? The
current license on our grep.c is GPLv2 only.
Now this one appears to have been a mistake on Bernhard's part back in
http://busybox.net/downloads/patches/svn-11594.patch (the previous version
was "or later" and I don't think he meant to drop the dual license) but it
got me looking for other similar instances in the code:
find . -name "*.?" | xargs egrep -i "GPLv2|GPL v2" | grep -v "or later"
[chopped scripts/config/*]
./archival/libunarchive/get_header_tar_lzma.c: * Licensed under GPL v2, see
file LICENSE in this tarball for details.
./archival/unlzma.c: * Licensed under GPL v2, see file LICENSE in this tarball
for details.
./modutils/insmod.c: "GPL v2",
./debianutils/which.c: * Licensed under the GPL v2, see the file LICENSE in
this tarball.
./debianutils/readlink.c: * Licensed under GPL v2, see file LICENSE in this
tarball for details.
./debianutils/run_parts.c: * Licensed under GPL v2, see file LICENSE in this
tarball for details.
./coreutils/seq.c: * Licensed under the GPL v2, see the file LICENSE in this
tarball.
./coreutils/sum.c: * Licensed under the GPL v2, see the file LICENSE in this
tarball.
./libbb/bb_do_delay.c: * Licensed under the GPL v2, see the file LICENSE in
this tarball.
./libbb/llist.c: * Licensed under the GPL v2, see the file LICENSE in this
tarball.
./libbb/find_pid_by_name.c: * Licensed under the GPL v2, see the file LICENSE
in this tarball.
./libbb/bb_pwd.c: * Licensed under the GPL v2, see the file LICENSE in this
tarball.
./loginutils/su.c: * Licensed under the GPL v2, see the file LICENSE in this
tarball.
./findutils/grep.c: * Licensed under the GPL v2, see the file LICENSE in this
tarball.
./procps/pidof.c: * Licensed under the GPL v2, see the file LICENSE in this
tarball.
./procps/ps.c: * Licensed under the GPL v2, see the file LICENSE in this
tarball.
./util-linux/swaponoff.c: * Licensed under the GPL v2, see the file LICENSE in
this tarball.
Anybody feel like auditing all those to make sure it was unintentional and
check to make sure that nobody that's contributed to any of those files since
is unwilling to also have their code under v3, or should we just admit that
the BusyBox license is GPLv2 only? (In which case we can take the hotplug
patch...)
Thoughts?
Rob
--
Never bet against the cheap plastic solution.
More information about the busybox
mailing list