This article has changed since the last time I read it, minutes ago. It didn't used to have that link, and it used to speculate that the supposed linux distro would be MIT licensed.
...There are several things I don't like about this article.
...There are several things I don't like about this article.
That doesn't sound very credible of them. The kernel is stuck as GPL; that won't change anytime soon.
If you ship a collection of software called a "distribution" that includes a copy of the Linux kernel, then that copy of the kernel remains GPL. The fact that it's on the same CD or server as some other MIT-licensed software is irrelevant.
So, having a GPL'd distribution means that the package sources and configurations and other such "distribution sources" have to follow the rules of the GPL. It doesn't matter what the license of the software itself is (it can even be GPL-incompatible or proprietary).
Not even Microsoft could pull that one off.
> ...There are several things I don't like about this article.
It reads like an April Fool's Joke circa 1996, you mean?