UserBusybox

[Rob Landley]

On Friday 15 September 2006 3:50 am, Andy Green wrote:
>   - As a practical matter the difference between the two trees would be 
> the licenses of the code that it could incorporate AIUI.  Busybox --> 
> GPL2 only code, UserBusybox --> GPL2+ only code.  Is that it?

As a practical matter, it means that the tree under GPLv2 could accept more 
code (such as anything written by the kernel developers), and the tree 
dual-licensed under GPLv2 and GPLv3 could only accept patches that were also 
dual licensed.

I.E. the tree under GPLv2 could legally copy patches from the dual licensed 
tree, but if the dual licensed tree attempted to take patches from the single 
licensed tree and attempted to add a second license that the original 
copyright holders hadn't granted, it would be violating the copyrights on 
those patches.

So until a final version of GPLv3 actually shipped, patches would only flow 
one way between the two trees: from the dual licensed tree into the single 
licensed tree.  And if the dual licensed tree accepted any patches that the 
other tree couldn't also accept (I.E. any GPLv3 only patches), it would 
effectively become GPLv3 only.

>   - On the GPL2+ model, is it not the recipient (ie, the customer for 
> many busybox usage scenarios) that gets to choose which license he views 
> the software under?

Sure.

> So he can say, well, I like the GPL3 better, please  
> give me your encryption keys?

Wouldn't work.  The guy you're demanding encryption keys from could laugh in 
your face and go "I'm using GPLv2".  _He_ is the recipient too, and it's fine 
to violate the terms of a license you're not using.  You just need to obey 
the terms of one valid license in order to have permission to create and 
distribute copies.

In addition, copyright covers creating copies, and due to the computers 
creating copies when you distribute stuff this effectively covers 
distribution as well.  But it doesn't cover use.  What you do with a valid 
copy is not something a copyright license can affect.  (Well, certainly 
couldn't before the DMCA, anyway.  Now it's fuzzier, but that's a very fuzzy 
law.)

And yes, years ago, Richard Stallman was the guy who pointed this out to me 
when I sent him a review draft of a copyright and licensing FAQ I was 
writing, which stalled for a bit unfinished and then eventually turned into:

http://www.fool.com/portfolios/rulemaker/2000/rulemaker000501.htm
http://www.fool.com/portfolios/rulemaker/2000/rulemaker000502.htm
http://www.fool.com/portfolios/rulemaker/2000/rulemaker000503.htm
http://www.fool.com/portfolios/rulemaker/2000/rulemaker000504.htm
http://www.fool.com/portfolios/rulemaker/2000/rulemaker000505.htm

That series was also reviewed by the Motley Fool's in-house legal counsel, 
which pointed out a couple of errors in it.  (And I can still spot one 
questionable call.  I was still learning back then.  I'm still learning now. 
I've just been doing it for a while...)

> And that ability comes just from GPL2+  
> licensing?  In this case unless there is a mighty swelling of developer 
> support for GPL3 which starves the original busybox tree of critical 
> code, I guess UserBusybox will be spurned by many designers of 
> commercial products...

The code I add to BusyBox I'm planning to license under GPLv2, I know that...

> -Andy

I am _really_ late for bed.  G'night.

Rob
-- 
Never bet against the cheap plastic solution.