Re: [OT] from LGPL to dual-license?

[Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net>]

On 01/29/2009 10:32 PM, Jeff Soules wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:14 PM, Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> wrote:
> > On 01/29/2009 05:27 PM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > Still, that's much easier than building proprietary or dual licensed work
> > > on top of GPL software.  The FSF's interpretation is basically that anytime
> > > GPL licensed code is integral to the functioning of the larger work (dynamic
> > > linking, static linking, IPC, *anytime*) the larger work must be licensed
> > > under the GPL, effectively forbidding proprietary or dual licensed works
> > > from being built on it.
> > Note that Linus doesn't agree with that idea, which is why, for example, the
> > nvidia driver is allowed.
>
> I think I'm confused -- in that case, wouldn't Linux be the
> larger work, and the driver be a work that's linked in?

Yes, but it's *dynamically* linked.  Linus takes (or, at least, he 
took, the last time I cared to look) the position that dynamic 
liking is fundamentally different than static linking.

--
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

"I am not surprised, for we live long and are celebrated poopers."