Not that I want to get into a license flame war, but a distribution that
is entirely GPL is not going to be incredibly useful: no Perl, no
Apache, a good chunk of the kernel (take a look at some of the sub
licenses),
no QT, no KDE, etc.
The concept of an all GPL distribution sounds great on the surface,
Debian couldn't pull it off, but many of the apps and services we rely
on are simply not GPL'd. All in all, why bother? As long as the software
is freely distributable and free of charge, who cares? It's better to
encourage OSS development through patience rather than force, but the
GPL is not the only license that would encourage this.
John
Guillaume Cottenceau wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> In Bordeaux some people criticized us for delivering non-free software
> like Netscape in our first CD that we label "GPL Edition" is its
> standalone version.
>
> Now we have a (rather funny) idea : why not trying to see if it's
> possible to build up a 100% GPL product? This would involve removing
> anything but GPL-ized stuff, that is XFree86, apache, etc.
>
> Does anyone here is interested in looking after this product?
>
> --
> "Pixel, il faut mettre un peu de chaleur dans tes contacts humains" (c) Titi
