On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 01:40:06AM -0600, Dave Sherohman wrote: > On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 09:39:23PM -0600, Florin Iucha wrote: > > http://www.busybox.net/about.html says > > BusyBox is maintained by Erik Andersen, and licensed under the GNU > > GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE > > > > So not GNU (on the surface, it might contain GNU code), but at least > > influenced by GNU. > > Not really relevant, is it? I've written code that has been under > GPL (both personal and work projects), but is not a part of the GNU > project, contains no code (knowingly) derived from any GNU code, and > basically has no connection to or influence from GNU at all on a > technical level. And you chose the GNU license based on... what? Cute mascot? Amiable leader? > Saying it must be GNU-influenced because it uses > GPL is like saying that a book (or program) is based on the > government's work because it has a copyright notice. It uses GPL because you were influenced by their ideas, philosophy and tools, or you just felt you need to give something back without knowing why. This has nothing to do with hard "intellectual property" statements like "linked to", "derived from". florin -- Don't question authority: they don't know either! -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature Url : http://shadowknight.real-time.com/pipermail/tclug-list/attachments/20050310/c3186576/attachment.pgp