This weekend's witch-hunt

Bruce Perens bruce at perens.com
Wed Sep 20 06:17:54 UTC 2006


Rob Landley wrote:
> All the new code I'm adding to BusyBox for the next release will be GPLv2 only.  This is both the code I'm adding, and the license I'm accepting patches under.
>   
This is your choice. I think it's unfortunate, but I do not see much
point in attempting to change your mind at this time. I think it's
important to keep other options open, and I'll make sure they are kept
open in my version of the program. I am betting that this will be
important someday, even to you.
> This was not legally required, since GPLv2 only is a valid subset of GPLv2 or later.
>   
IMO you may choose to combine pieces in a way that makes the GPL2 the
only valid license for the combined work, but - and this is where we
differ - you may not remove the "and any later version" from the various
individual contributions without the permission of their copyright
holders. Their declaration of the applicable license has all of the
legal weight of the license text itself, and nothing in the GPL or the
declaration gives anyone but the copyright holder the right to remove it.
> Linus announced six 
> years ago (the Linux 2.4.0-pre8 announcement I linked to in a previous 
> message was from 2000) that they were not the same, that his code was (and 
> always had been) GPLv2 only.  Where does that leave our Torvalds-written 
> applets?
We write down this stuff BECAUSE people can change their minds or even
just their interpretations. The "and any later version" is there in
writing, in the designation of applicable license for that version of
the kernel, and Linus can be held to it in court unambiguously. The GPL
section 9 is not necessary to make this so. That said, I'm not sure that
the minix filesystem is so important any longer.
> Did anything else slip in on his watch?  Did anything else slip in on my watch? I honestly don't know.
>   
This could be dealt with through a public notice process. Publish the
code and license with a call for objection by copyright holders. The
only gotcha is that SCO and its ilk could choose to make a false claim.
> I realize that you don't have this drive.
Some races can be won by taking a different route, rather than by being
faster or stronger. I think a much more distributed effort is possible.
I do not intend to work on this every evening, nor do I intend for
anyone else to have to do that. As VP of Sourcelabs I may be able to
make some new partnerships with companies that embed Busybox. Some of
them are already our customers. Not all of them are putting in what they
could.
> The last sentence is relevant here.  I may choose the version.
Yes, for the overall work. But you seem to believe that you have the
right to remove someone else's right to choose a different GPL version
to use with a particular fragment of code, where the copyright holder
has made the right to use that version available.
> I'm treating everybody equally.  You're mad I'm not treating you specially.
>   
Sorry, but I have to reject this. What I have asked for everyone should
have.
> I'm sorry, I shouldn't have gone there.  I should have held my tongue, the way 
> I did on Friday.
>   
OK, thank you for realizing that.

    Bruce




More information about the busybox mailing list