> Linux using GPL wasn't such a big problem for the corps, as the Linux developers stated the syscall interface is the GPL boundary.
That is fine for creating applications. It still required drivers and other things that expose syscalls to be open and GPLed.
> Even if Linux were permissively licensed,
The tainted kernel was the attack on the GPL itself i talked about. After tainted kernel, it is pretty much NOT-GPL, hence the devs gave in to a more permissive license while still calling it GPL. So the rest of the point is moot. Linux kernel DID adopt a permissive license, which is the reason we do not have proper open source android today.
> But given the more or less total lack of adoption
chicken and egg problem. But that is *exactly* the argument against GPL for the kernel in the past.
That is fine for creating applications. It still required drivers and other things that expose syscalls to be open and GPLed.
> Even if Linux were permissively licensed,
The tainted kernel was the attack on the GPL itself i talked about. After tainted kernel, it is pretty much NOT-GPL, hence the devs gave in to a more permissive license while still calling it GPL. So the rest of the point is moot. Linux kernel DID adopt a permissive license, which is the reason we do not have proper open source android today.
> But given the more or less total lack of adoption
chicken and egg problem. But that is *exactly* the argument against GPL for the kernel in the past.