On 27/08/2013 11:26, Joerg Schilling wrote: > Joerg Schilling <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Alan McKinnon <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>>> Isn't it strange that those people seem to have less problems with closed >>>> source than with a license that gives more freedom than the GPL? But >>>> you are correct that the problem seem to be humans and not a license text. >>> >>> You are aware that the GPL was not really intended to be used together >>> with other licenses? It was really intended to create an entire >>> operating system, all of which was 100% licensed as GPL, all of which >>> comprise an original work written from scratch >> >> But it has been proven that you cannot create a 100% GPL OS. >> More than 50% of all Linux distros are under different licenses... >> > > Sorry, this should be: More than 50% of a typical Linux distro is > under different licenses...
All we can state for sure is that no-one has yet created a fully 100% GPL operating system. If you persuade FSF to relicense glibc to you as GPL it *is* possible to do it for kernel and (a somewhat crippled) userland. But not for firmware. But this is beside the point, I was illustrating Stallman's intent, not whether that intent could be realized or not. -- Alan McKinnon [email protected]
