From e0fe65b68f3bee29d19ef8a3936bd52370a93a20 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Bernhard Reutner-Fischer Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 14:00:25 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] - fix markup --- docs/busybox.net/license.html | 22 ++++++++++++---------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) diff --git a/docs/busybox.net/license.html b/docs/busybox.net/license.html index 76358bc65..c23287884 100644 --- a/docs/busybox.net/license.html +++ b/docs/busybox.net/license.html @@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ familiar with it by now.)

A complete copy of the license text is included in the file LICENSE in the BusyBox source code.

-

Anyone thinking of shipping BusyBox as part of a +

Anyone thinking of shipping BusyBox as part of a product should be familiar with the licensing terms under which they are allowed to use and distribute BusyBox. Read the full test of the GPL (either through the above link, or in the file LICENSE in the busybox tarball), and @@ -32,10 +32,11 @@ of BusyBox may be distributed under. New code added to the tree is licensed GPL version 2, and the project's license is GPL version 2.

Older versions of BusyBox (versions 1.2.2 and earlier, up through about svn -16112) included variants of the recommended "GPL version 2 or (at your option) -later versions" boilerplate permission grant. Ancient versions of BusyBox +16112) included variants of the recommended +"GPL version 2 or (at your option) later versions" boilerplate +permission grant. Ancient versions of BusyBox (before svn 49) did not specify any version at all, and section 9 of GPLv2 -(the most recent version at the time) says those old versions may be +(the most recent version at that time) says those old versions may be redistributed under any version of GPL (including the obsolete V1). This was conceptually similar to a dual license, except that the different licenses were different versions of the GPL.

@@ -43,7 +44,8 @@ different versions of the GPL.

However, BusyBox has apparently always contained chunks of code that were licensed under GPL version 2 only. Examples include applets written by Linus Torvalds (util-linux/mkfs_minix.c and util_linux/mkswap.c) which stated they -"may be redistributed as per the Linux copyright" (which Linus clarified in the +"may be redistributed as per the Linux copyright" (which Linus +clarified in the 2.4.0-pre8 release announcement in 2000 was GPLv2 only), and Linux kernel code copied into libbb/loop.c (after Linus's announcement). There are probably more, because all we used to check was that the code was GPL, not which @@ -62,15 +64,15 @@ want to use. New development is all GPLv2.

License enforcement

BusyBox's copyrights are enforced by the Software Freedom Law Center +href="http://www.softwarefreedom.org/">Software Freedom Law Center (you can contact them at gpl@busybox.net), which -"accepts primary responsibility for enforcement of US copyrights on the +"accepts primary responsibility for enforcement of US copyrights on the software... and coordinates international copyright enforcement efforts for -such works as necessary." If you distribute BusyBox in a way that doesn't +such works as necessary." If you distribute BusyBox in a way that doesn't comply with the terms of the license BusyBox is distributed under, expect to hear from these guys. Their entire reason for existing is to do pro-bono legal work for free/open source software projects. (We used to list people who -violate the BusyBox license in The Hall of Shame, +violate the BusyBox license in The Hall of Shame, but these days we find it much more effective to hand them over to the lawyers.)

@@ -88,7 +90,7 @@ with the license on our code.

doing a good job at complying with the GPL, they get to be an example of how to do things right. Please take a moment and check out what they do with - + distributing the firmware for their WRT54G Router. Following their example would be a fine way to ensure that you have also fulfilled your licensing obligations.

-- 2.25.1