were on the gpl v2 right now arent we for this?
personaly i see the BSD approach as better, the licence isnt what causes the nature of the software its the approach to buildig the OS. Yes there are different BSD's but each is meant to be a complete OS on its own, not a Linux Kernel with GNU userland or whatever, its a BSD Kernel, and matching BSD userland.
Reactos will be like that most likely since its hard to just change so much this early on.
Id like to consider other licences myself since i have a personal problems with the GPL and what it means to my efforts as a programer. Im happy to be open source i just dislike the idea i cant profit off my code directly. (say a company wants to use it, GPL they can just take it and i get nothing but patches back.)
They Are Complete Operating Systems.
They are like this because they are designed like this. Each BSD project Builds their own kernel and userland. they make sure these parts work together as well as possible together, and they keep track of everything, FreeBSD IS a complete os in the opposite of the way people claim it should be called GNU/Linux because the Linux kernel gets used with the GNU userland.
A few projects have tride to use the kernel without the userland but i dont see much of them, and ive seen one project that builds over the FreeBSD base with other software but its still realy FreeBSD...
Where was i going with this... Oh well, some of it looks good