Re: [RFC] klibc requirements

[Doug McNaught <doug@wireboard.com>]

David Lang <dlang@diginsite.com> writes:

> On 15 Jan 2002, Doug McNaught wrote:
> 
> >
> > > as an example (not for the boot process, but an example of a replacement
> > > libc use) I use the firewall toolkit, it has been around for a _loooong_
> > > time (in software terms anyway) and has a firly odd licence (free for you
> > > to use, source available, cannot sell it) which is not compatable with the
> > > GPL. with glibc staticly linked this makes huge binaries, with libc5 they
> > > were a lot smaller. I would like to try to use this small libc for these
> > > proxies, but if the library is GPL, not LGPL I'm not allowed to.
> >
> > Hmm, I think you can; you just can't redistribute it.  Can you even
> > redistribute fwtk on non-commercial terms?
> >
> nope, only allowed to get it from nai (and they sure don't make it easy to
> find on their website)

Problem solved, then; you can link fwtk with a GPL'd libc on your own
machines and use it all day.  You can't redistribute fwtk, so you
aren't even tempted to violate the GPL.

-Doug
-- 
Let us cross over the river, and rest under the shade of the trees.
   --T. J. Jackson, 1863