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

On Sat, 15 Jun 2002, Sean C. Farley wrote:

> I was showing that it is hard to compare one license being better than
> the other when using FreeBSD vs Linux as the example.  FreeBSD was hit
> hard by the lawsuit.  Many developers avoided it until it was settled.
> With such a large factor involved in its development, it makes it hard
> to compare other factors.

Maybe I just wasn't paying enough attention to FreeBSD, or maybe I'm just 
forgetting, but what lawsuit was this again?

> Personally, I believe FreeBSD's style of development (more centralized)
> gives it a better chance than Linux in the long run.  The license will
> probably play a part to help it.  With two large projects, it is hard to
> point at only one factor making one project better than the other.

I think there's an open question regarding "bazaar" vs. "cathedral" 
development -- while the bazaar model is clearly more active, the cathedral 
model seems likely to be more consistent in quality, vision and coherency.  
Bazaar-style development has very high quality in some spots and much lower 
quality in others, because people at all different skill levels contribute.  
It may also tend more towards a "kitchen sink" approach.  But it tends to 
move forward much faster.  Which is better, ultimately?

Of course, I'm not sure Linux is truly a bazaar model -- the respected 
Linux kernel gurus (Linus, Alan, etc.) are in their cathedral making their 
judgements on the code offered by the masses in the bazaar below...  (Maybe 
some sort of hybrid model like this is the best approach, though?)

Deven