Re: viral license free fork of freebsd

On 10/5/07, 韓家標 Bill Hacker <askbill_at_conducive.net> wrote:
> Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
> >
> > On 2007-Oct-4, at 23:21 , 韓家標 Bill Hacker wrote:
> >
> >> Fine details - and there are many - quite aside, 'Job One' for anyone
> >> taking this route - is what to do that *won't break* - about gcc.
> >
> > 'Job One' is to translate the system from gcc to cc :-(
>
> ACK. The most important part / first step of that overall issue.
>
> Mind - I'm not convinced of the need in the first place, even with RMS & Co.
> most recent jihad.

I don't wish to start any political fights... I think my middle blog
made that clear... historically the SIW community has discovered it is
next to hopeless to deal with FOSS fanatics (most of whom slept
through econ 101 ;-)) thus the easiest thing to do is avoid the issue
completely and not use any GPL like code.   Other non-viral OSD
licenses are no issue though.  Also if someone wants to do something
like ports or such on top of my work I have no issue either as long
the core OS has zero viral FOSS code (including the core build
process).   One reason I said no to LGPL is even though it is meant as
a peace offering from the FSF camp I don't trust them... in the same
way there is no reason the UN should trust Iran on any claims it makes
to it's nukes program.

I have much more challenging technical goals for the project but the
first step is to free it of viral FOSS code (and eventually out of
moral fairness of any non-SIW'ed FOSS code).   Since I don't want to
say to much publicly (not to commit my self to any thing and/or give
an other team a leap start) the final product will be a ground up
rewrite of the complete OS for tech not legal reasons.   Along the way
I plan to spin off various pure FOSS and SIW'ed by products (but as
the final blog entry states I need to eat just like anyone else so
until I get to that point I will SIW most of it I think)

> But if anyone runs across a Free/OpenSource Mercedes-Benz or even a used Dodge
> Caravan with leaks, worn brakes, and a load of other-folks' trash in the back (Gcc?)
>
> ... that 'compiles' unattended, at no-fee, from free parts - while I go out to a
> movie and dinner - please let me know!

That is the whole goal of the middle ground model (SIW)... btw it is
based in solid econ (reviewed by a micro econ researcher) with a white
paper due out towards the end of the year.

> I won't mind a 'must publish' clause.

No need even for that I think.   The only clause needed is the source
be avaible to all comers free of charge while limiting end user use
(even if compiled by the user them selves) to being paid for and/or
contributed to as per the definitions in my final blog entry.