dual licensing for libbusybox

[Rob Landley]

On Thursday 02 March 2006 1:33 pm, Jim Thompson wrote:
> >you sure about that ?  everything ive seen indicates that even if you link
> >dynamically against a GPL library, your code needs to be GPL ... and
> > that's one of the reasons so many people hate readline
> >-mike
>
> Stallman says that dynamic linking isn't any different than static
> linking for the purpose of the GPL.

"For the purpose of the GPL" and "for the purpose of determining what is and 
isn't a derived work under copyright law" are not the same thing.  And this 
isn't the forum to rehash this discussion.  There are dozens of links at the 
end of this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License
Or here:
http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=20050131065655645

Might I also suggest reading Lawrence Lessig and Eben Moglen's blogs, checking 
the periodic surfacing of this topic on linux-kernel, etc.

Rob
-- 
Never bet against the cheap plastic solution.