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

At 05:26 PM 6/15/02 -0400, Deven T. Corzine wrote:

>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.

1. First of all I want to clarify again, that I didn't say that the license 
was a factor for the success of Linux.

2. Second I agree with you that probably the success of Linux happened 
independently of the license(as long as it was some free software license 
of course).

3. Third I want to generalize that statement a little bit. I think that for 
most projects it won't make a big difference what the license is. If we 
look at the BSDs we see that there are no proprietary significant forks. So 
they could as well have used the xGPL. Once the free project is strong 
enough, no proprietary fork will manage to survive. So I think even if 
Linux would be under the BSDL there would be no private fork because it 
wouldn't be able to be better than its free counterpart. Maybe the only 
exception is if a big company like M$ could pump millions and millions into 
it to make it really much better, but even then I think most people would 
rather use the free version.

4. Maybe one of the advantages of the BSDL is that it allowes cannibalizing 
of projects. Imagine if you just want to use one part of a GPLed program in 
some proprietary product. You can't, unless you want to make the whole 
product GPL. With the BSDL that is possible.


Roland