Corbet.«Busy busy busybox».LWN.net,01-10-2006. Arxivat de l'original el January 7, 2016.[Consulta: 21 novembre 2015].«Since BusyBox can be found in so many embedded systems, it finds itself at the core of the GPLv3 anti-DRM debate. [...]The real outcomes, however, are this: BusyBox will be GPLv2 only starting with the next release. It is generally accepted that stripping out the "or any later version" is legally defensible, and that the merging of other GPLv2-only code will force that issue in any case»
Landley, Rob.«Re: Move GPLv2 vs v3 fun…». lwn.net,09-09-2006. Arxivat de l'original el September 16, 2017.[Consulta: 21 novembre 2015].«Don't invent a straw man argument please. I consider licensing BusyBox under GPLv3 to be useless, unnecessary, overcomplicated, and confusing, and in addition to that it has actual downsides. 1) Useless: We're never dropping GPLv2.»
Corbet.«Busy busy busybox».LWN.net,01-10-2006. Arxivat de l'original el January 7, 2016.[Consulta: 21 novembre 2015].«Since BusyBox can be found in so many embedded systems, it finds itself at the core of the GPLv3 anti-DRM debate. [...]The real outcomes, however, are this: BusyBox will be GPLv2 only starting with the next release. It is generally accepted that stripping out the "or any later version" is legally defensible, and that the merging of other GPLv2-only code will force that issue in any case»
Landley, Rob.«Re: Move GPLv2 vs v3 fun…». lwn.net,09-09-2006. Arxivat de l'original el September 16, 2017.[Consulta: 21 novembre 2015].«Don't invent a straw man argument please. I consider licensing BusyBox under GPLv3 to be useless, unnecessary, overcomplicated, and confusing, and in addition to that it has actual downsides. 1) Useless: We're never dropping GPLv2.»
