Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

GPLv2 licence and original authors should be more clearly shown #1

Open
esotericnonsense opened this issue Nov 14, 2019 · 4 comments · May be fixed by #36
Open

GPLv2 licence and original authors should be more clearly shown #1

esotericnonsense opened this issue Nov 14, 2019 · 4 comments · May be fixed by #36

Comments

@esotericnonsense
Copy link

esotericnonsense commented Nov 14, 2019

Cargo.toml should probably have the licence in and inclusion in the root.

I think you want this in Cargo.toml:
license = "GPL-2.0-only"

Perhaps the AUTHORS file from busybox as well.

Great work!

@alexellis
Copy link

LICENSE at the root of the project and at the end of the README would be great too. I couldn't find the license at all.

@ratherDashing
Copy link

I’m working on a project that I’ve been looking for something like this but also concerned about the license. Before I look at the code please license this software.

@lbmn
Copy link

lbmn commented Nov 15, 2019

Using a copyfree license would give your project a competitive advantage...

@LongJohnCoder
Copy link

Using a copyfree license would give your project a competitive advantage...

The rustybox source is derived from busybox which is GPL, so this code is also under GPL. Language translation does not release the license requirements, so switching to a less restrictive license is not possible without permission of the busybox copyright owners.

blt added a commit to blt/rustybox that referenced this issue Aug 2, 2020
The original Busybox source notes that it is distributed under GPL-2.
This notice was retained in this project in file headers but appeared
to be absent from a top-level notice or in Cargo.toml.

Resolves samuela#1.
@mjholub mjholub linked a pull request Apr 9, 2023 that will close this issue
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

5 participants