| 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 |
Archives