open source isn't gpl (Score 2)

Can we stop acting like conditioned rats every time Mundie says GPL.

Mundie and MSoft have directed the public discussions pretty effectively, they just keep poking at that fanatical GPL nerve; impressive that they've made the GPL the absolute center of discussion, equating GPL and open source. Controversy of the GPL makes it a weak point for open source, by equating the two Mundie/MSoft have assigned to open source all of the restrictions of GPL.

As long as we're stuck on GPL, at least mention some of its variants -- LGPL, special-case GPLs, whatever.

Somebody help me out here, try to think of a commercial product using maybe RTEMS and Microwindows/Nano-X and the GNU MultiPrecision library? Or some other not-necessarily GPL combination of open source libraries that doesn't require derivative software to be all open-source?

A commercial product can use software libraries like these; the developers of such a product comply with the library licenses by publishing changes to the libraries, etc., so forth, to contribute to open source. But the commercial product remains proprietary.

Could do some effective MundieBashing, saying "RTEMS Nano-X GMP LGPL proprietary derivative software," proving the man wrong and derailing his agenda by focusing on open source strengths.