Kang-Che Sung wrote: >Since we are introducing the feature of embedding scripts into BusyBox, and >user may now include and build their custom scripts into the BusyBox binary, I >think there's one thing we forgot to address when this binary would be >distributed. That is: the license problem.
I mentioned licensing in my original message to the list on 25th October: I wrote: >There may be licensing implications. Shipping the BusyBox binary and >some shell scripts as separate files is clearly 'mere aggregation'; >embedding the scripts in the binary isn't. I don't know what the status >of the scripts would be in that case. Kang-Che Sung wrote: >Specifically, I think the current state of config ASH_EMBEDDED_SCRIPTS help >text did not yet warn builders that the binary may be distributed **only when >the embedding scripts are GPLv2-compatible**. Builder and distributors may >accidentally violate copyright if they didn't get careful at reading the >BusyBox licenses. I think something should be done to make the warning more >explicit. As I said: I don't know what the status of embedded scripts is. *Are* they required to be GPLv2 compatible? Kang-Che Sung wrote: >I'm not sure if additional measures needs to be done to check the script's >license (is it good to require every script in the embed directory to carry a >licence tag, or is that overkill?) We have no control over custom scripts that people might include in their own builds. Scripts that are submitted for inclusion in BusyBox should be GPLv2 licensed like any other code submission. Ron _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
