On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 7:56 AM, Rich Felker <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Perhaps it's time to write a special clause that says that the scope >> of busybox enforcement should be restricted to busybox (not used as a >> proxy). > > Why? I would hope many developers would be against such a policy. The > most useful part of Busybox enforcement is as a proxy. Nobody actually > cares about the modifications to Busybox (if any); they care about the > kernel patches and other stuff that's essential to using the hardware > Busybox is distributed on. > > Rich > _______________________________________________ > busybox mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox we might as well just rewrite linux under a more permissive license... -- quarq consulting: agile, open source _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
