So I'm looking at the patch attached to bug 999, and guess what I notice?  The 
current license on our grep.c is GPLv2 only.

Now this one appears to have been a mistake on Bernhard's part back in 
http://busybox.net/downloads/patches/svn-11594.patch (the previous version 
was "or later" and I don't think he meant to drop the dual license) but it 
got me looking for other similar instances in the code:

find . -name "*.?" | xargs egrep -i "GPLv2|GPL v2" | grep -v "or later"
[chopped scripts/config/*]
./archival/libunarchive/get_header_tar_lzma.c: * Licensed under GPL v2, see 
file LICENSE in this tarball for details.
./archival/unlzma.c: * Licensed under GPL v2, see file LICENSE in this tarball 
for details.
./modutils/insmod.c:            "GPL v2",
./debianutils/which.c: * Licensed under the GPL v2, see the file LICENSE in 
this tarball.
./debianutils/readlink.c: * Licensed under GPL v2, see file LICENSE in this 
tarball for details.
./debianutils/run_parts.c: * Licensed under GPL v2, see file LICENSE in this 
tarball for details.
./coreutils/seq.c: * Licensed under the GPL v2, see the file LICENSE in this 
tarball.
./coreutils/sum.c: * Licensed under the GPL v2, see the file LICENSE in this 
tarball.
./libbb/bb_do_delay.c: * Licensed under the GPL v2, see the file LICENSE in 
this tarball.
./libbb/llist.c: * Licensed under the GPL v2, see the file LICENSE in this 
tarball.
./libbb/find_pid_by_name.c: * Licensed under the GPL v2, see the file LICENSE 
in this tarball.
./libbb/bb_pwd.c: * Licensed under the GPL v2, see the file LICENSE in this 
tarball.
./loginutils/su.c: *  Licensed under the GPL v2, see the file LICENSE in this 
tarball.
./findutils/grep.c: * Licensed under the GPL v2, see the file LICENSE in this 
tarball.
./procps/pidof.c: * Licensed under the GPL v2, see the file LICENSE in this 
tarball.
./procps/ps.c: * Licensed under the GPL v2, see the file LICENSE in this 
tarball.
./util-linux/swaponoff.c: * Licensed under the GPL v2, see the file LICENSE in 
this tarball.

Anybody feel like auditing all those to make sure it was unintentional and 
check to make sure that nobody that's contributed to any of those files since 
is unwilling to also have their code under v3, or should we just admit that 
the BusyBox license is GPLv2 only?  (In which case we can take the hotplug 
patch...)

Thoughts?

Rob
-- 
Never bet against the cheap plastic solution.