[BusyBox] [patch] new applet mountpoint

Rob Landley rob at landley.net
Fri Aug 19 00:35:59 UTC 2005

On Thursday 18 August 2005 19:28, Rob Landley wrote:
> Keep in mind the FSF has all its contributors sign over their copyrights to
> the Free Software Foundation.  (You want to know why the Herd has been in
> development for almost 20 years now but has yet to achieve as much as Linux
> did in its first year?  They want you to fill out physical paperwork giving
> up your ownership of the code in order to become a contributor to The
> Hurd.) Whatever the pros and cons may be, nobody else does that...

I hate the fact that if a kmail composer window loses focus, it sometimes 
sends the message.  The pre-Kontact version didn't do that.  Kmail was nice, 
but Kontact is driving me to look for another email program...

I was _about_ to say that if you read the GPL text, section 9 says:

> Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program
> specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any
> later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions
> either of that version or of any later version published by the Free
> Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of
> this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software
> Foundation.       

For all the blather about "Oh!  Linus's restriction of his contributions to 
GPL v2 creates a conflict in the license", if you read the license _text_ it 
doesn't.  It's up to the program to specify the version number of the license 
that applies to it.  The above says what to do if A) it specifies a version 
and any later version, B) doesn't specify a version.

If it specifies a version and does _not_ say "and any later version", neither 
of the above two "if" statements apply, do they?  That's case C) fall through 
and do what the program says to do, which is v2 only.

Now you can say that code under "v2 or later" and "v2 only" have incompatible 
license terms, but that seems to me as silly as saying code that's 
dual-licensed "GPL or BSD" and code that's "GPL only" have incompatible 
license terms.  They have a compatible subset, and that's what the collective 
result can be distributed under...


More information about the busybox mailing list