diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'www')
| -rwxr-xr-x | www/about.html | 7 | ||||
| -rwxr-xr-x | www/license.html | 35 |
2 files changed, 7 insertions, 35 deletions
diff --git a/www/about.html b/www/about.html index 4dae2d21..4bbc180e 100755 --- a/www/about.html +++ b/www/about.html @@ -93,4 +93,11 @@ versions ("tip" is the current development version).</p> <a href=http://www2.them.com:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/toybox>mailing list</a> are also good ways to track what's going on with the project.</p> +<b><h2><a name="toycans" />What's the background image on the web page?</h2></b> + +<p>It's <a href=toycans-big.jpg>carefully stacked soda cans</a>. Specifically, +it's a bunch of the original "Coke Zero" and "Pepsi One" cans, circa 2006, +stacked to spell out the binary values of the ascii string "Toybox" (with +null terminator at the bottom).</p> + <!--#include file="footer.html" --> diff --git a/www/license.html b/www/license.html index 8dcd3074..d67269db 100755 --- a/www/license.html +++ b/www/license.html @@ -64,41 +64,6 @@ being explicit about it.)</p> <p>If you're wondering why this particular clarification exists, there's a <a href=licenserant.html>longer explanation</a>.</p> -<p>The reason for this section is that -<a href="http://software.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=06/06/23/1728205&tid=150">what the FSF did to Mepis</a> was inexcusable. (Further discussed -in <a href="http://www.busybox.net/lists/busybox/2006-June/022797.html">this -thread</a>.) Mepis partnered with Ubuntu, put out a press release quoting -Ubuntu's founder about how cool the partnership was, and then pointed to -Ubuntu's source repository for packages it was using unmodified Ubuntu versions -of. As far as we're concerned, Mepis didn't do anything wrong, and the FSF -was a bully. The FSF was wrong when it tried to make an example out of a -company that was acting in good faith.</p> - -<p>To make sure the FSF doesn't pick on anyone else against our wishes, we're -clarifying that if you didn't modify the source code, and the binaries you're -distributing can be entirely regenerated from a public upstream source, -pointing to that upstream source in good faith is good enough for us, as long -as they don't mind the extra bandwidth and the correct source code stays -available at that location for the duration of your responsiblity to -redistribute source.</p> - -<p>This doesn't mean it's fair for a Fortune 500 company to point millions of -people at somebody's home DSL line (certainly not without asking first). -And if the source that's available there isn't the complete source you used -to produce your binaries, you haven't fulfilled your obligations either. -And if the code stops being available at that location, you're not off the -hook and have to find a new location or put up your own mirror. And obviously -it has to be the _right_ source code (if you modified it, we want the patch, -and claiming you didn't modify it when you actually did is fraud).</p> - -<p>So this is not a "get out of jail free" card: It's still your responsibility -to make the complete corresponding source available. We're just saying you can -reasonably delegate to something like Sourceforge or ibilbio, and as long as -everyone who wants the source can get it, we're happy. If the site you point -to objects or goes down, responsibility obviously reverts to you. But if this -project needs mirrors, we'll _ask_. (Most likely we'll ask someone like -sourceforge, OSL, ISC, ibiblio, archive.org...)</p> - <p>Finally, <b>section 9 does not apply to this project.</b> We're specifying a specific version, it's version 2. There is no "or later versions" clause to require interpreting, so none of that triggers for us.</p> |