Re: Effectiveness of GPL vs. BSD (was Re: GPL vs. sweatshops (was Re: Bias))

On Fri, 14 Jun 2002, Tony Lambregts wrote:

> >Huh?  If Linux is more successful than FreeBSD, why would you jump to the 
> >conclusion that the LICENSE is responsible?  Seems much more likely that a 
> >difference in the SOFTWARE would account for it first.
>
> Huh? Why would you say that? They are both implementations of *nix and 
> most of the source code is available to anyone who wants to compile it, 
> so...  I think Roland has a point thats pretty strong.  I think you can 
> look for other excuses but this is a pretty apples to apples comparison.

Back when I was first using SunOS at college, I became a big fan of BSD 
Unix, not to mention free software in general.  I liked the GPL and the BSD 
license about equally well, because both gave me the code WITH the source 
for free, so they were both good.  If I was looking for free software, it 
didn't really matter that a company COULD proprietize BSD code, because my 
search was through whatever code was free, so BSD/GPL didn't really matter.

When I first got a PC clone in January 1994 (I had been an Amiga hacker 
before then), I fully expected to end up using NetBSD on it.  (This was 
before the days of FreeBSD and OpenBSD.)  However, just in case, I chose my 
hardware carefully enough that NetBSD and Linux would both support it -- 
since Linux was getting popular already, I figured I might as well check it 
out.  Either way, my goal was to get a nice Unix machine on my desktop and 
since I was a fan of BSD-style Unix, I figured NetBSD would probably be it.

Well, when I got the computer, I partitioned it up and installed both Linux 
and NetBSD on it.  I quickly discovered that I liked the Linux software 
better, and it felt enough like BSD Unix that it didn't matter whether or 
not it was really derived from the BSD code or not.  Ultimately, I found 
myself using Linux all the time, and NetBSD not at all -- so I removed 
NetBSD from my hard drive.

My decision was based ENTIRELY on the quality of the software -- the Linux 
distribution simply worked better than the NetBSD one, so that's why I used 
it.  It didn't matter to me which license it was under.  While I knew the 
difference between GPL and BSD licensing, as a free software user, either 
was acceptable, as both are free software.  The fact that BSD code could be 
perverted easily wasn't a factor, since it didn't change the quality of the 
code which was publicly available.

(Slackware) Linux was a nicer distribution and it worked better for me than 
NetBSD did, and it was clearly under more active development, because Linux 
was using the "bazaar" model while NetBSD was using the "cathedral" model;
even though those terms had not yet been coined, it was clear to me then 
that the many people on Linux were making faster progress than the few core 
contributors to NetBSD.

I used Linux because the software AND the development model were better 
than NetBSD.  The license was completely immaterial.  If Linux had been 
under the BSD license and NetBSD had been under the GPL, with all other 
factors the same, my choice would not have been any different at all.

So yes, I think you're jumping to conclusions to say that Linux succeeds 
primarily due to its GPL licensing.  I think the "bazaar" development model 
has a LOT more to do with it.

Deven