dual licensing for libbusybox
Mike Frysinger
vapier at gentoo.org
Wed Mar 1 20:02:43 PST 2006
On Wednesday 01 March 2006 22:56, Jim Thompson wrote:
> Kevin Dankwardt wrote:
> >In my experience, the generally accepted view, and the whole reason and
> > distinction of LGPL vs. GPL is that when an application links against a
> > GPL library it is considered to be derived from that library. Thus,
> > linking against a library whose only license you have is GPL, means you
> > must GPL your application.
>
> Just saying "linking" isn't clear. proprietary programs staticly
> linked against GPL licensed libraries will be considered a derived
> work. Those same programs *dynamically linked* against GPL licensed
> libraries are not. (Otherwise, Oracle would be 100% open source now.)
you sure about that ? everything ive seen indicates that even if you link
dynamically against a GPL library, your code needs to be GPL ... and that's
one of the reasons so many people hate readline
-mike
More information about the busybox
mailing list