Hyman Rosen wrote: >On 2/11/2010 2:21 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: >> >> Why didn't Erik Andersen fork the busybox to create his > > own non-joint version of busybox? > >As far as I understand, he made changes to BusyBox to >produce a new version. "Fork" would imply that he was >making a version separate from one undergoing development >by someone else. I do not know the history of BusyBox well >enough to say if this was the case, but I would suspect >that it wasn't. > >There is no joint copyright version of BusyBox, so asking >why he did not create his own non-joint version makes an >untrue implication. > >> They "agree and intend to do so" by posting contributions >> to joint work projects like busybox
Good gravy, what a ludicrous claim. You are a fscking idiot. >They do not. They post contributions to GPL-licensed >programs, and the GPL is the only documentation of >their intent. If the GPL intended to create a joint >work it would say so, and since it does not, no joint >work is created. Indeed, since the GPL spells out that >GPLed work may be distributed only under the GPL, while >joint authorship would allow later authors to distribute >the work otherwise, it is clear that the GPL intends not >to create a joint work. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
