FreeGPL is a very poor and misleading name for any new license. I thin
the MPL has its place however
> The one biggest plus is that this license is now well known, and I
> think it is highly beneficial to the Open Source Community for as
> much code as possible to fall under the same license. I think this is
Licenses - each has its place but not too many . Couldnt agree more
> understand all the legal ramifications of the license. In fact IMHO
> if you interpret the GPL/LGPL's anti-commerical sentiments it would
> appear to me that much of the commercial software appearing for Linux
> does violate some of the GPL licensing (but this is argueable because
> the damn license is so vague!).
The C libraries are LGPL so that appears to be a non issue. The kernel
itself is GPL and because of license interpretation issues the kernel
has the following in the README, to clarify it.
-----------
NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel
services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use
of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work".
-----------
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html