[lkml]   [2002]   [Jan]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC] klibc requirements
David Lang <> 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.

Let us cross over the river, and rest under the shade of the trees.
--T. J. Jackson, 1863
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:23    [W:0.050 / U:3.064 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site