The only reasons there are any issues with kind of issue merging code between different projects is 1) if you want to abuse users (which we should have no sympathy for) and 2) because Linus screwed everything up by modifying the GPLv2 to remove the automatic upgrade clause (maybe so his users could abuse their users). The latter is then part of why Rob made the even more awkward decision to do it to busybox, and why any of this is relevant to toybox... a project which shouldn't really exist for any reason other than because Rob really really wanted people to be free to abuse users going forward (having felt bad about some prior lawsuits over source code access). Only, as busybox is also now GPLv2 only, not only is busybox part of the problem, but you can't even use code from busybox in toybox without yourself becoming part of the same problem (as you get locked to GPLv2).
When you work on pretty much anything else, you really aren't going to run into this license compatibility problem: these are the only two projects I have ever come across that are using this fork of GPLv2, and, frankly, they are both traitors to the cause and enablers of companies like Samsung and Sony for doing so. And BTW, using some stupid bespoke license isn't just a thing people do with forking the GPL: the OpenSSL 1.x license was also incompatible with freedom-preserving licenses... but they fixed this in OpenSSL 3.x, and so the only real problems now are Linux and busybox. Regardless, blaming GNU for Linus and Rob screwing us all over makes no sense: if you want to be upset at anyone, be upset with projects that use non-standard GPL forks (including merely to deal with the OpenSSL 1.x license), not with the GPL itself, as it isn't at fault.
> The only reasons there are any issues with kind of issue merging code between different projects is 1) if you want to abuse users
"Abuse" them how? There's nothing wrong with the GPLv2, and no one should be obligated to switch to a different version.
> Linus screwed everything up by modifying the GPLv2 to remove the automatic upgrade clause (maybe so his users could abuse their users).
So, in your world. The FSF should be free to hold the entire open source community hostage? What if the evil "user abusing" people take over and make the GPLv4 with a version of CC0 and forcing everyone to switch (here's hoping, at least :P )
Having the ability to attack open source software is power, and that power can be used for coercion. The GPL is designed to prevent this, not propagate it with a backdoor.
> The latter is then part of why Rob made the even more awkward decision to do it to busybox, and why any of this is relevant to toybox... a project which shouldn't really exist for any reason other than because Rob really really wanted people to be free to abuse users going forward
No, toybox was created because the code of busybox was starting to look like GNU code (there's a reason they didn't codeshare even when they had the same license). It was originally a GPLv2 project in it's infancy.
> When you work on pretty much anything else, you really aren't going to run into this license compatibility problem: these are the only two projects I have ever come across that are using this fork of GPLv2
Linux Kernel and Samba still can't codeshare. ISABUG SHOULDBEFIXXED :P
> the only real problems now are Linux and busybox. Regardless, blaming GNU for Linus and Rob screwing us all over makes no sense
In your mind, the GNU project should have the ability to do whatever it wants up to _and including_ changing the terms which all open source software can be used at whim. And it's everyone else's fault when they don't trust the FSF with that ability.
> not with the GPL itself, as it isn't at fault.
You are correct, The GPLv2 is actually to some capacity a fine license. Which is why I'm mad at the FSF for trying to take the open source world hostage which lead to companies getting rid of GPL code in their codebases alltogether.
https://drewdevault.com/2020/09/25/A-story-of-two-libcs.html