2008/10/12 Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Sun, 2008-10-12 at 16:25 +0200, Roberto A. Foglietta wrote: >> 2008/10/12 Denys Vlasenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> > 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. Remember that GPL allow >> only dynamic linking, static should enforce GPL redistributions terms >> and make your application bigger. > > Eh? The GPL does not allow dynamic linking against non-free code. Are > you thinking of the LGPL? >
Thanks very much for your promptly correction. I forgot to say that the point of view I exposed is NOT the strictly/cautionary one. It was a HUGE missing I recognize it, please do not flame for this. In facts there are people who consider acceptable dynamic linking against GPLv2 (or previous) libraries. You are right in say that GNU indicates that dynamic linking is not allowed but unfortunately they could be wrong, at least in writing correctly the GPLv2 many years ago. The problem is not any more what GNU indicates (we just know) but what various courts would think about GPL terms application. IMHO it is not decided yet. http://www.novell.com/coolsolutions/feature/1532.html [citation] In sum, users of the GPL code are empowered to do pretty much whatever they want with GPL code, provided that they assert no proprietary rights to the original code and open source any derivative works. Untangling the question of what constitutes a derivative work is the thorniest issue the GPL raises, and was by far the biggest roadblock to Linux adoption by the world. However, as noted, dynamic linking to GPL code is generally not considered to create a derivative work. This is *not* to say that this is the "Right" legal outcome - no one can know the definitive answer on that matter until a court settles it - but it is to argue that general industry practice has come to view dynamic linking as acceptable. This opens up a huge realm of options to the commercial software developer to leverage the power of Linux, while retaining the ability to make money from one's own software that interoperates with Linux. Even so, you should seek professional legal advice before you link to open source code. [/citation] In the previous link there some good points, for community too, to have a soften approach to consider dynamic liking acceptable. Here in this following link there are good consideration to think that this soften approach would be soft and put the GPL code in danger to be betrayed but malicious adopters, instead. http://www.advogato.org/article/148.html However in the comments of the page previously linked somebody asked if dynamic linking against a GPL-library has been objected in a court. It is not easy for me to understand exactly legal English but the following link seem to say "yes, dynamic linking with GPL is acceptable". http://www.oslawblog.com/2005/01/dynamic-linking-gpl-and-lgpl.html As far as I understood, it is because you have the right to run a software and load it in your memory, as usually a library does, it is possible for everybody (so a non-GPL'ed software too) call that software API until a licence term specifically forbid it. For example in Linux they have solved this issue declaring which APIs are available for GPL modules and what are not. In these links the question is faced too: http://www.cpi.seas.gwu.edu/oss/cpi_rebuttal.pdf http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/05/087224 http://lwn.net/Articles/172226 Cheers, -- /roberto _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/busybox
