Rob Landley schrieb: > 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...) >
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. _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/busybox
