Cisco Cisco 5508 Wireless Controller 릴리즈 노트

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.</p>

 

<p>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

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

version.  (Before the GPLv3 draft proceedings in 2006, it was a purely

theoretical issue that didn't come up much.)</p>

 

<p>To summarize: every version of BusyBox may be distributed under the terms of

GPL version 2.  New versions (after 1.2.2) may <b>only</b> be distributed under

GPLv2, not under other versions of the GPL.  Older versions of BusyBox might

(or might not) be distributable under other versions of the GPL.  If you

want to use a GPL version other than 2, you should start with one of the old

versions such as release 1.2.2 or SVN 16112, and do your own homework to

identify and remove any code that can't be licensed under the GPL version you

want to use.  New development is all GPLv2.</p>

 

<h3><a name="enforce">License enforcement</a></h3>

 

<p>BusyBox's copyrights are enforced by the <a

href="http://www.softwarefreedom.org/">Software Freedom Law Center</a>

(you can contact them at gpl@busybox.net), which

"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

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 <a href="shame.html">The Hall of Shame</a>,

but these days we find it much more effective to hand them over to the

lawyers.)</p>

 

<p>Our enforcement efforts are aimed at bringing people into compliance with

the BusyBox license.  Open source software is under a different license from

proprietary software, but if you violate that license you're still a software

pirate and the law gives the vendor (us) some big sticks to play with.  We

don't want monetary awards, injunctions, or to generate bad PR for a company,

unless that's the only way to get somebody that repeatedly ignores us to comply

with the license on our code.</p>

 

<h3><a name="good">A Good Example</a></h3>