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 fox, pgf at brightstareng.com

More information about the busybox mailing list