Busybox under closed-source-license avaiable?

[Roberto A. Foglietta]

2008/10/13 walter harms <wharms at bfs.de>:
>
>
> Rob Landley schrieb:
>> On Sunday 12 October 2008 09:25:50 Roberto A. Foglietta wrote:
>>> 2008/10/12 Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux at googlemail.com>:
>>>> On Wednesday 08 October 2008 10:24:32 pm Lin Xbasu wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you please tell me, whether it is possible to get a license for the
>>>>> busybox to distribute it as object code / executable without beeing
>>>>> forced to publish the source code as GPL does?
>>>> I think busybox had many contributors over the years, and it's virtually
>>>> impossible to contact them all and convince every single one of them
>>>> to agree on this.
>>>>
>>>> You have to comply with GPL v2. Which is not difficult and costs nothing.
>>>  In case you want deliver your specific proprietary command line
>>> executable and you would like to keep its size very small then you can
>>> compile it linking against busybox library.
>>
>> Where'd you get that from?  Libbb has never promised a stable documented API
>> to act as a barrier limiting derived work status.
>>
>> Your interpretation of events also goes against the fact that trolltech has
>> been saying for years that you can't dynamically link against their GPL-only
>> qt libraries, which are dynamic libraries by the way...
>>
>>> Remember that GPL allow
>>> only dynamic linking, static should enforce GPL redistributions terms
>>> and make your application bigger.
>>
>> Where does the text of the GPL mention dynamic vs static linking?  I haven't
>> read it this week, but I'm sure I'd have remembered.  (I sent three fedex
>> envelopes to the SFLC over the past two weeks about busybox license
>> enforcement.  I suspect if it was as clear cut as you say they would have
>> mentioned something by now...)
>>
>
> I think the case is closed 8at least in Germany). The courts decided that
> it does not matter what  static/dynamic/dlopen. this is long term practice.
> this is the reason why LGPL is introduced and libreadline is GPL.
>

 Could you give us a link/reference to that Germany case?

 Thanks,
-- 
/roberto