dual licensing for libbusybox
Paul Fox
pgf at brightstareng.com
Thu Mar 2 04:19:31 UTC 2006
mike 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
that's what i thought too. otherwise, what's the difference
between GPL and LGPL?
paul
=---------------------
paul fox, pgf at brightstareng.com
More information about the busybox
mailing list