> 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?
+1 on all this - esp the part about GPL. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
