should all BB code be GPL?

[ldoolitt at recycle.lbl.gov]

On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 12:26:24PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 08:11:07AM -0700, ldoolitt at recycle.lbl.gov wrote:
> > 
> > How about adding the following boilerplate to the source files
> > that are not purely GPL:
> >   /* The above license has been reviewed, and is compatible with the GPL.
> >    * The GPL is the only license which applies to a Busybox binary.
> >    */
> 
> This does not convey the same information. If the file was received
> through busybox (likely with at least minor modifications), that
> modified version is NOT licensed under the original license by the
> person who modified it; it's licensed only under the GPL.

If a file from a non-GPL (but compatible, e.g. three-clause BSD)
source is incorporated into busybox, the person importing it owns
the copyright on their changes.  They should update the copyright
ownership section of the file to reflect that, and have two choices
for how to license the result:

1. License their changes under the original license, and add
the boilerplate I suggested above.

2. License their changes under the GPL, in which case only
the GPL applies to the ensemble.  GPL boilerplate gets added,
but a reference to the original license is kept out of respect
to the original author(s), while attempting to make it clear
that it does not apply to the current version of the file.

Non-authors (that includes aggregators) should avoid subtracting
from license information listed in a file.  There are cases, as
I mentioned above, where it makes sense to add license information
to a file.

   - Larry