dual licensing for libbusybox

[Jim Thompson]

Glenn L. McGrath wrote:

>On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 08:33:39 -1000
>Jim Thompson <jim at netgate.com> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>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.
>>    
>>
>
>The GPL states conditions under which you are allowed to distribute a
>derivate work.
>
>Nothing in the GPL grants people the right to produce a derivative work
>that isnt distributed. Its just that you havent violated the licence
>untill you distribute.
>
... outside your organization. 

See:
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl-faq.html#WhyDoesTheGPLPermitUsersToPublishTheirModifiedVersions

> Its not a right, its somthing thats not forbidden.
>  
>
I will grant you that the GPL states:

Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
covered by this License; they are outside its scope.  The act of
running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program
is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the
Program (independent of having been made by running the Program).

However, the FSF makes a lot of other noise about 'use'.

Quoting: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copyleft.html

To copyleft a program, we first state that it is copyrighted; then we
add distribution terms, which are a legal instrument that gives everyone
the rights to use, modify, and redistribute the program's code /or any
program derived from it/ but only if the distribution terms are
unchanged. Thus, the code and the freedoms become legally inseparable.

You may also wish to reflect that case law says that you "copy" a
program by loading it into memory for execution.