dual licensing for libbusybox

[Rob Landley]

On Wednesday 01 March 2006 8:33 pm, Kevin Dankwardt wrote:
> My whole point, however, I am finally getting to it ... is that any
> library, including a BusyBox library that is licensed only with the GPL is
> going to severely limit its usage.

I actively do not care.  This library exists so "make standalone" in busybox 
allows individual applet binaries to share code.  It might also, at some 
point in the future, export a libz interface, perhaps libbzip2,  and possibly 
even a tiny fake ansi-based termcap/terminfo (whatever curses exports).  
Alternate implementations of commonly available libraries that we already 
have internal code for anyway.

> I also agree that the copyright holder must grant the license. Thus if
> someone contributed code as GPL - someone else can't just now say that the
> code will be available with a different, say LGPL, license.

And thus this is a useless discussion.

> After the fact changing a license is completely
> different. Of course. As was already stated in the email thread.

Oh you noticed?  Good.

> -kevin dankwardt

Rob
-- 
Never bet against the cheap plastic solution.