1 |
On 27/08/2013 11:26, Joerg Schilling wrote: |
2 |
> Joerg Schilling <Joerg.Schilling@××××××××××××××××.de> wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
>> Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> wrote: |
5 |
>> |
6 |
>>>> Isn't it strange that those people seem to have less problems with closed |
7 |
>>>> source than with a license that gives more freedom than the GPL? But |
8 |
>>>> you are correct that the problem seem to be humans and not a license text. |
9 |
>>> |
10 |
>>> You are aware that the GPL was not really intended to be used together |
11 |
>>> with other licenses? It was really intended to create an entire |
12 |
>>> operating system, all of which was 100% licensed as GPL, all of which |
13 |
>>> comprise an original work written from scratch |
14 |
>> |
15 |
>> But it has been proven that you cannot create a 100% GPL OS. |
16 |
>> More than 50% of all Linux distros are under different licenses... |
17 |
>> |
18 |
> |
19 |
> Sorry, this should be: More than 50% of a typical Linux distro is |
20 |
> under different licenses... |
21 |
|
22 |
|
23 |
All we can state for sure is that no-one has yet created a fully 100% |
24 |
GPL operating system. If you persuade FSF to relicense glibc to you as |
25 |
GPL it *is* possible to do it for kernel and (a somewhat crippled) |
26 |
userland. But not for firmware. |
27 |
|
28 |
But this is beside the point, I was illustrating Stallman's intent, not |
29 |
whether that intent could be realized or not. |
30 |
|
31 |
|
32 |
-- |
33 |
Alan McKinnon |
34 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |