Re: Linux 2.6.9 and the GPL Buyout

["Jeff V. Merkey" <jmerkey@gadugi.org>]

Horst von Brand wrote:

>Right. But the Cherokee Nation would have to be recognized, and it would
>have to adhere to the Berne Convention and a lot of other stuff for this to
>make any kind of difference. Plus they would need the international clout
>to make their decisions stick. I.e., it won't help a bit.
>  
>

We are an A8 classified orgnaization with the Federal Government.  This 
means we come
before handicapped businesses and minorities for government purchases, 
and the highest
levels of the Federal Government are aware of this project.  This also 
means is a situation
where the United States is using Open source, Federal Law requires ours 
be used instead
of Linux or BSD. 

>What is wrong with GPL for the kernel? That could be a useful discussion
>(just not here, please). Also note that some 80% of OSS is under GPL/LPGL,
>so staying compatible with those licenses is very important on its own
>right.
>
>What is wrong with starting with the *BSDs for the merged OS, if GPL won't
>do for some weird reason?
>
>Besides, had you asked politely if the LKML crowd would consider a change
>in license to the kernel _for a purpose like you say here_, and _coherent_
>reasons for a change in license, there would have been quite a bit more
>receptiveness. But, as the kernel has thousands of contributors whose work
>is _very_ difficult to separate (probably more than just building the whole
>shebang from scratch), the point is moot anyway.
>
>[...]
>  
>
I don't believe this one bit.  LKML has some very good folks but it also 
has some very immature and childish folks with thier own agendas.  It 
also has a lot of folks from post-
communist Europe and the views of many of these people are not aligned 
with captilist
viewpoints.  There will always be hecklers and idiots who just don't get 
it, and it really
doesn't matter one bit.  The verdict's in, the light moves forward.

:-)

Jeff