dammy wrote:
This will allow greater freedom on doing ports of other open source software that would not be possible (ie license conflicts) with the current x86/PPC AROS kernel.
How does the kernel license influence the licensing of applications?
How does LGPLing the kernel make it easier to reuse any code from that one major open-source kernel project which comes bound by the terms of the more restrictive GPL?
If the kernel is modular, with clearly defined interfaces, and drivers are distributed separately from it, does the license really matter at all? (Even if individual users 'taint' their kernels, as long as they don't redistribute that combination as a single package they're pretty well out of the grey area. Same thing goes for ugly proprietary Linux drivers, like the nVidia blobs, though the concern there is that RedHat et al would like to be able to legally ship single packaged products that actually work on anyone's hardware.)
I'm not going to
complain about a less obfuscated, less restrictive license --- the LGPL specifically avoids the OMG-you-can't-distribute-this-it's-tainted problem, and tainting doesn't seem to have ever
stopped any jack*** manufacturers from offering blob-only support --- but I'm not sure this solves what you think it's solving.
The BSDs have some pretty good driver code, anyway.