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

On Mon, 17 Jun 2002, Roland wrote:

> 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.

I suppose you didn't.  But you left it wide open to be interpreted thusly.

> 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).

I think Linux could have been equally successful under the BSD license or 
even as public domain software.

> 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.

I think this is the critical point.  The public project needs to be strong 
and vital to survive the threat of code being appropriated by proprietary 
interests, because that's the strongest incentive for those interests not 
to proprietize unnecessarily, and it encourages them to contribute back.

However, a dead, inactive public project under a BSD license is ripe for 
proprietary exploitation, and there would be little reason to contribute 
back when there's no active development happening on the public side.

> 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.

I think the GPL is a good mechanism to gather the critical mass on a public 
project to help it become vital and active before being exploited by some 
profit-seeking proprietary interest.  However, I suspect it may be better 
to switch to the BSD license once critical mass is reached, for its unique, 
counterintuitive benefits...

Deven