dual licensing for libbusybox

[Jim Thompson]

Mike Frysinger wrote:

>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
>  
>
Stallman says that dynamic linking isn't any different than static
linking for the purpose of the GPL.

That may be true, but an important issue is who does the linking.  Lets
say that rms is correct, and that the link (static or dynamic) produces
a derived work.

Even then, the act of dynamic linking is done by (or on behalf of) the
end user, he or she has the right to produce the derived work, even
containing non-GPL'd code, provided that he or she does not distribute
the derived work outside his or her organization.

There is also the whole 'derivitive work' .vs 'compilation' issue wrt
copyright law.