Thus spake Phil Nelson ("PN> ") sometime Today...

PN> Again, I'd like to know why it is so important to have the GPL removed
PN> from all the tools?  I understand the kernel and fully support it.

What do you mean by stating that you "understand the kernel and fully
support it"?  Do you mean that you understand how the kernel works and
fully support it, or you understand the necessity to have no GPL'd code
in the kernel and you support that effort?  [I'll assume the latter,
but the statement, especially in conjunction with the previous sentence,
is confusing.]

This notwithstanding, as I understand it [I'm sure someone will correct me]:

The GPL not only enforces distribution of the involved source code, which
is undesirable for anyone doing embedded or potentially proprietary
systems, but it enforces distribution of any derivate works; i.e. if
you make any modifications to it, you must distribute your modifications
to the work.

In addition, the GPL also involves *supporting* the program as modified,
IIUC.

Either or both of the above are potentially nonconducive to third parties,
as the term "distribution" may only be replaced by "making available",
something you don't want to do with paid development, usually.

PN> --Phil

				--*greywolf;
--
NetBSD: Groovy Baby!