dual licensing for libbusybox

Mike Frysinger vapier at gentoo.org
Thu Mar 2 04:02:43 UTC 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