Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 8th Jun 2009 21:24 UTC
SkyOS The future of SkyOS, the closed-source alternative operating system, had been hanging by a thread for a long time now. Barely any releases, until they came to a grinding halt altogether and Robert Szeleney explained he was pondering the future of SkyOS, and where to take it from here. One of the main problems was a lack of driver support which really made development difficult. Well, this is a problem Szeleney might be able to fix.
Thread beginning with comment 367493
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
GPL?
by kenji on Mon 8th Jun 2009 22:47 UTC
kenji
Member since:
2009-04-08

Why would a 'proprietary commercial' (project goals) OS want to use an open source GPL licensed linux kernel? NetBSD would be a better bet so they do not become tied up with the GPL. FreeBSD even better.

Reply Score: 4

RE: GPL?
by panzi on Mon 8th Jun 2009 23:15 in reply to "GPL?"
panzi Member since:
2006-01-22

Would Darwin be an option? ;) (Is it BSD Licensed?)

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: GPL?
by poundsmack on Mon 8th Jun 2009 23:24 in reply to "RE: GPL?"
poundsmack Member since:
2005-07-13

QNX or Darwin are great kernels, but neither one would be a good choice for this project (yes i am revoking my own prior comment as well). the goal is for broad hardware suport. The linux kernel has that in spades, and well NetBSD runs on anything, so naturaly they are the best choices. I hope they go with NetBSD, as it would be great to see a desktop OS with NetBSD at it's core. Good luck Robert, glad to hear things are moving again.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: GPL?
by Laurence on Tue 9th Jun 2009 07:31 in reply to "GPL?"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Why would a 'proprietary commercial' (project goals) OS want to use an open source GPL licensed linux kernel? NetBSD would be a better bet so they do not become tied up with the GPL. FreeBSD even better.


There's no licencing conflict as SkyOS is userland (ie runs outside of the GPL Linux kernel)


If Robert was to adapt the Linux kernel to better host SkyOS's userland (which I'm sure he will), then he'd have to make the kernels source available (albeit, at the very least, by request).

But the bulk of the OS can still remain closed source as it only "talks" to the kernel.

Edited 2009-06-09 07:35 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: GPL?
by Darkness on Tue 9th Jun 2009 07:47 in reply to "RE: GPL?"
Darkness Member since:
2005-08-27

indeed, nothing proprietary is being linked to the kernel so I don't see any problem with that.

Reply Parent Score: 1