Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
> > Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >> nemesis wrote:
> >>> How many big enterprises contribute code to the *BSDs
> >> Well, MIT, and Berkeley, for example?  Hence the name of the software and
> >> the name of the license?
> >
> > Those are academia.  What about industry players?
>
> OK, here's a question for you. Right now, you're saying
> """
> GPL'd software evolve at faster pace than
> MIT-style software.
> """
>
> Since this is your assertion, I'll assume you actually know of some
> documented evidence for this fact?

No, sorry.  It's just from my point of view.  Linux seems to offers a more
"slick" experience for a desktop user than something as FreeBSD, but of course
this could be due to FreeBSD's main target as a server system.  Or perhaps
simply because there are far more developers behind Linux than FreeBSD or
OpenBSD, despite all the high praises these systems get from a technical
standpoint.  Which begs the question of why.

I assumed it was because the GPL levels the field to the point where people do
not fear their code being used for anything more than free GPL'd software.  But
you may disagree with my point of view.

> > Yes, Apache and its wealth of web and java tools are popular too.  Even
> > Microsoft is contributing to them, as well as Sun and IBM.
>
> So you don't need the GPL to make industry give back, see?

Indeed.  Of course, we could also speculate how much worse or better, or faster
or slower development would be in the Apache camp had they opted for GPL.
Since you enjoy long-winded speculation, I'll leave that for you as a thought
experiment... :P

> And the GPL doesn't make industry give back either. I don't see MapReduce or
> BigTable getting released by Google, for example.

Funny.  You know that's because MapReduce and BigTable were not GPL'd in the
first place.  They are Google properties, period.

> > That's true when it's GPL'd and truly getting improved for everyone, not when
> > it's released under some promiscuous licensing, some competitor picks it up,
> > makes it better and power their product with the superior modification and
> > pisses and laughs on your face.
>
> Name two. Really, I asked this before and got no answer. Name two
> MIT-licensed software packages that are no longer available because some
> commercial entity took it over.

It's not the case of being no longer available, but of being developed on a far
slower pace than GPL'd software.  But I'm really just pulling it out from my
ass.  Just mild speculation from a free desktop user.

> Thinking that (say) Microsoft should release their entire OS under the same
> terms as the BSD TCP stack is silly. They wouldn't have used it at all if
> that was the case.

Fine.  What was the arguing again?

Post a reply to this message