Darx Kies wrote: > Hi > > I would opt for LGPL for the kernel, GPL for the drivers and the rest. > A commercial dual-licensing should be ok too. > > Chriss. > > Chad Z. Hower aka Kudzu wrote: > >> Which also brings up... >> >> Go to the home page. Search for "license". I Cant find anything... rule #1 >> of any open source project (Darn, cant use OS abbreviation, would be >> ambiguous) is to prominently display the license. >> >>
The operable question being what goal is the selected license covering? Or are we selecting LGPL / GPL simply because it's the most popular OSS license? I cannot agree with using GPL, again not without a linking clause. LGPL, for all intents, covers this. The "kernel", runtime, scheduler, driver framework, etc all would be LGPL, allowing for binary closed-source drivers and other apps. Again, personally I would rather go for BSD. But I can understand where people want to force things to remain open source and attributable. Thus the necessity of commercial dual-licensing. So what is GPL covering that LGPL doesn't, in terms of a microkernel architecture? ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ SharpOS-Developers mailing list SharpOS-Developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sharpos-developers
