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.
What is wrong with GPL for the kernel? That could be a useful discussionI 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-
(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
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.