Move GPLv2 vs v3 fun...
Rob Landley
rob at landley.net
Wed Sep 13 20:16:10 UTC 2006
On Wednesday 13 September 2006 12:39 pm, Bernhard Fischer wrote:
> >./debianutils/which.c: * Licensed under the GPL v2, see the file LICENSE in
> >this tarball.
>
> mine, fixed.
Would you also like to contact everyone who has checked code into those since
then and confirm that they're ok having the patches they submitted under the
new license terms you just added back?
> >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?
>
> Most of these were copy'n paste errors. Corrected as of r16113
I realize they originated as copy and paste errors, yes. After all, nobody's
ever lost a lawsuit because what the contract said and what they meant were
two different things.
Do you believe that if we do slim down to GPLv2 for the project and then
change our minds a year later, we can just decree that we're re-licensing it
as GPLv3 without checking with contributors since then?
Rob
--
Never bet against the cheap plastic solution.
More information about the busybox
mailing list