Mercurial > hg > toybox
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 |