dual licensing for libbusybox

[David Seikel]

On Fri, 3 Mar 2006 08:07:49 +1300 "Glenn L. McGrath" <bug1 at ihug.co.nz>
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. Its not a right, its somthing thats not
> forbidden.

Kinda makes the entire "dynamic linking produces a derived work" sound
a little silly.  Means I am in violation of GPL unless I distribute the
in memory copy of a running program that is dynamically linked to a GPL
library.  IANAL, and it's way past my bed time, so I'm probably raving
insensibly.

-- 
Stuff I have no control over could be added after this line.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://busybox.net/lists/busybox/attachments/20060303/417f0ca6/attachment-0001.pgp