Well maybe i misunderstood, but doesn't the GPL require you to release -all- your source code even if you use a GPL library, which you do not modify? even if that GPL library is only 0.00001% of the total code? That sounds rather restricive to me..
If we have a micro kernel with a GPL license, wouldn't all drivers and applications be sort-a linked to the kernel? And would that require everything on the kernel to be GPL? If so, that sounds like a sure way to scare about just about everyone except the hardcore opensource developers... Also, could a company that uses a GPL library in their application sell that application? Even if the source code of the application is released? or does it -have to- be free? If so, again too restrictive imho. If i'm wrong, please correct me. If we want sharpos to succeed i think we should try to find ways to -include- people and (non) commercial entities, not -exclude-. LGPL or MPL would be fine to me... ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ SharpOS-Developers mailing list SharpOS-Developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sharpos-developers
