On Sunday 12 October 2008 09:25:50 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.
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...) Rob _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/busybox
