comparison www/license.html @ 226:6aac63925eff

Update web pages.
author Rob Landley <rob@landley.net>
date Sat, 05 Jan 2008 18:09:49 -0600
parents a5e1ebc1d6ee
children 60cfaaeb4c4e
comparison
equal deleted inserted replaced
225:b4ec652305df 226:6aac63925eff
1 <!--#include file="header.html" --> 1 <!--#include file="header.html" -->
2 2
3 <h2>Toybox is licensed under the terms of GPLv2.</h2> 3 <h2>Toybox is licensed under the terms of GPLv2.</h2>
4 4
5 <p>The complete text of the General Public License version 2 is included in the 5 <p>The complete text of the General Public License version 2 is included in the
6 file LICENSE in each source tarball, and again at the end of this page. 6 file LICENSE in each source tarball. Version 2 is the only version of this
7 Version 2 is the only version of this license which toybox is distributed 7 license which toybox is distributed under. (I.E. It doesn't have the strange
8 under. (I.E. It doesn't have the strange "or later" dual license some projects 8 "or later" dual license some projects have.)</p>
9 have.)</p> 9
10 <p>The complete text of GPLv2 is at the end of this page.</p>
10 11
11 <h2>Clarifications</h2> 12 <h2>Clarifications</h2>
12 13
13 <p>The GPL is a bit old and crufty in places, but it's still the best open 14 <p>The GPL is a bit old and crufty in places, but it's still the best open
14 source license there is, and lots of source code (like the Linux kernel) is 15 source license there is, and lots of source code (like the Linux kernel) is
20 interpreting the sucker where it says something stupid.</p> 21 interpreting the sucker where it says something stupid.</p>
21 22
22 <p>Section 1: <b>You have permission to rephrase the license notice on 23 <p>Section 1: <b>You have permission to rephrase the license notice on
23 individual source files.</b> This doesn't mean you can change what license the 24 individual source files.</b> This doesn't mean you can change what license the
24 code is under, or that you can remove other people's copyright notices. You 25 code is under, or that you can remove other people's copyright notices. You
25 certainly can't change the test of the GPL itself. What it means is that if 26 certainly can't change the text of the GPL itself. What it means is that if
26 a file says "see file LICENSE in this tarball for details" and you use this 27 a file says "see file LICENSE in this tarball for details" and you use this
27 code in a project that distributes source in zip files instead of 28 code in a project that distributes source in zip files instead of
28 tarballs, or your package's copy of the GPLv2 text isn't in a file called 29 tarballs, or your package's copy of the GPLv2 text isn't in a file called
29 "LICENSE", it's silly to preserve an obsolete notice verbatim and add some 30 "LICENSE", it's silly to preserve an obsolete notice verbatim and add some
30 kind of "correction" after the old notice.</p> 31 kind of "correction" after the old notice.</p>
31 32
32 <p>Some lawyers seem to think a strict reading of GPLv2 section 1 (and later 33 <p>Some lawyers seem to think a strict reading of GPLv2 section 1 (and later
33 sections including section 1 by reference) requires maintaining old notices in 34 sections including section 1 by reference) requires maintaining old notices in
34 perpetuity. Even if you had code that used to be dual licensed, but created 35 perpetuity. Even if you had code that used to be dual licensed, but you created
35 a derived work that's just under one of the two licenses, and the old license 36 a derived work that's just under one of the two licenses, and thus keeping the
36 notice is not just strange or misleading but actually incorrect for the new 37 old license notice is not just strange or misleading but actually incorrect for
37 file. (For example, splicing GPLv2 only code into a dual "GPLv2 or later" 38 the new file. (For example, splicing GPLv2 only code into a dual "GPLv2 or
38 project produces a result that can be distributed under the terms of GPLv2, 39 later" project produces a result that can be distributed under the terms of
39 but not GPLv3. The result cannot be distributed under the "or later" part, 40 GPLv2, but not GPLv3. The result of that cannot be distributed under the "or
40 so a license notice saying it could is factually wrong.)</p> 41 later" part, so a license notice implying it could is factually wrong.)</p>
41 42
42 <p>I don't know if we're ever going to put any dual licensed code into the tree, 43 <p>I don't know if we're ever going to add any dual licensed code into the tree,
43 but I want to head that one off now. The actual license text is the important 44 but I want to head that one off now. The actual license text is the important
44 thing, the per-file notice is a courtesy.</p> 45 thing, the per-file notice is a courtesy.</p>
45 46
46 <p>Section 2: <b>We don't put the change history in comments in the source 47 <p>Section 2: <b>We don't put the change history in comments in the source
47 code, we put it in our source control system.</b> We have source control for a 48 code, we put it in our source control system.</b> We have source control for a
55 downloadable at that location for three years after you stop distributing 56 downloadable at that location for three years after you stop distributing
56 binaries, life is good as far as we're concerned. (No, you can't encrypt it, 57 binaries, life is good as far as we're concerned. (No, you can't encrypt it,
57 or require a login, or otherwise be slimy bastards acting in bad faith. We'll 58 or require a login, or otherwise be slimy bastards acting in bad faith. We'll
58 come after you if you're not satisfying the terms of the license, this is just 59 come after you if you're not satisfying the terms of the license, this is just
59 talking about how you can satisfy those terms without having to mail physical 60 talking about how you can satisfy those terms without having to mail physical
60 media. Most people are already doing it this way.)</p> 61 media circa 1991. Most people are already doing it this way, we're just
61 62 being explicit about it.)</p>
62 <p>Also, <a href="http://software.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=06/06/23/1728205&tid=150">what the FSF did to Mepis</a> was inexcusable. (Further discussed 63
64 <p>If you're wondering why this particular clarification exists,
65 there's a <a href=licenserant.html>longer explanation</a>.</p>
66
67 <p>The reason for this section is that
68 <a href="http://software.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=06/06/23/1728205&tid=150">what the FSF did to Mepis</a> was inexcusable. (Further discussed
63 in <a href="http://www.busybox.net/lists/busybox/2006-June/022797.html">this 69 in <a href="http://www.busybox.net/lists/busybox/2006-June/022797.html">this
64 thread</a>.) Mepis partnered with Ubuntu, put out a press release quoting 70 thread</a>.) Mepis partnered with Ubuntu, put out a press release quoting
65 Ubuntu's founder about how cool the partnership was, and then pointed to 71 Ubuntu's founder about how cool the partnership was, and then pointed to
66 Ubuntu's source repository for packages it was using unmodified Ubuntu versions 72 Ubuntu's source repository for packages it was using unmodified Ubuntu versions
67 of. As far as we're concerned, Mepis didn't do anything wrong, and the FSF 73 of. As far as we're concerned, Mepis didn't do anything wrong, and the FSF
83 And if the code stops being available at that location, you're not off the 89 And if the code stops being available at that location, you're not off the
84 hook and have to find a new location or put up your own mirror. And obviously 90 hook and have to find a new location or put up your own mirror. And obviously
85 it has to be the _right_ source code (if you modified it, we want the patch, 91 it has to be the _right_ source code (if you modified it, we want the patch,
86 and claiming you didn't modify it when you actually did is fraud).</p> 92 and claiming you didn't modify it when you actually did is fraud).</p>
87 93
88 <p>This is not a "get out of jail free" card: It's still your responsibility to 94 <p>So this is not a "get out of jail free" card: It's still your responsibility
89 make the source available. We're just saying you can reasonably delegate to 95 to make the complete corresponding source available. We're just saying you can
90 something like Sourceforge or ibilbio and as long as everyone who wants the 96 reasonably delegate to something like Sourceforge or ibilbio, and as long as
91 source can get it, we're happy. If the site you point to objects or goes down, 97 everyone who wants the source can get it, we're happy. If the site you point
92 responsibility obviously reverts to you.</p> 98 to objects or goes down, responsibility obviously reverts to you. But if this
93 99 project needs mirrors, we'll _ask_. (Most likely we'll ask someone like
94 <p>But if this project needs mirrors, we'll _ask_. (Most likely we'll ask 100 sourceforge, OSL, ISC, ibiblio, archive.org...)</p>
95 someone like sourceforge, OSL, ISC, ibiblio, archive.org...)</p> 101
96 102 <p>Finally, <b>section 9 does not apply to this project.</b> We're specifying
97 <p>Section 9: <b>Does not apply to this project.</b> We're specifying the 103 a specific version, it's version 2. There is no "or later versions" clause to
98 version, it's version 2. There is no "or later versions" clause to require 104 require interpreting, so none of that triggers for us.</p>
99 interpreting.
100 105
101 <hr> 106 <hr>
102 <pre> 107 <pre>
103 GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE 108 GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
104 Version 2, June 1991 109 Version 2, June 1991