Re: Does the LGPL encourage sharing of code?

Tony wrote:

> > > All these compilers prove that GCC is *not* killing off other compilers.
> > > Brett would be hard-pressed to come up with a *single* example of a
> > > compiler which GCC has killed.
> >metaware.  watcom.
> 
> I'm not sure about Metaware's case, but Watcom was killed by Borland and
> Microsoft, which was unfortunate; they had a great compiler.

The last I heard of watcom was that they were trying to opensource their product -
so the GCC definitely had impact on them.  See http://www.openwatcom.org

> > One can easily come up with simple economic reasons why *GPL has problems.
> 
> I'd argue that economics is too complex to come up with rationales.
> It's too easy to make any economic case make sense.

not sure about that - you have to have a pretty good rationale to contradict
fundamental rules like supply/demand, law of diminishing return....  I have
yet to see an _economic_ arguement in favor of *GPL that has anything other than
wishful thinking behind it.

> And economics as practiced today in the US is flawed; stocks are sold as
> commodity.  This is what allowed the "dotcom" (stupid name) economic phenomena
> at the end of the '90s, when any sane person could see there was no economic
> foundation for any of those companies.  Everyone wanted to get in on a
> Microsoft at the ground level.

The dotbomb was an anomoly.  Stuff like this does happen, but the point is that
it is not sustainable, as reality sets in.  As for economics being flawed, that's
a given, as people are irrational.  I also dispute that stocks are a commodity -
IBM is worth more than Enron :-).  In the same light, I think the *GPL is eventually
going to fail, as it does not honor intellectual property - an idea that's been
around for quite a long while.

> >oh?  So you run NetBSD other than linux because you think it is superior?
> >Portability is an attibute of how something does something.  It is not a ranking.
> 
> Nope.  The primary goal of Linux is not portability.  The primary goal
> of Linux is that Linus have fun. 

yes, but the primary goal of NetBSD *is* portability.

> The primary goal of GCC is portability; and by that criteria, it succeeds
> wonderfully.  I use GCC because I know my source will be able to compile on many different
> platforms.

So, why doesn't your argument work for NetBSD.  I see no difference - using your 
criteria, NetBSD is superior.
 
> >>it's C++ support is lags a little bit, but is quickly catching up,
> >
> >yeah... it's only been around for what?  15 years?
> 
> Yep.  But C++ sucks to start with.

no argument here.  Go, java, go.

> I've not seen too many people interested in the C++ end of the compiler.
> And that is a drawback of free software, both copyleft and BSD/X11;
> people work in their areas of interest.

It is less true of GPL than it is for X11.  Significant contributions have
been made to X11.  But this argument has already been made wrt wine, but
fell on deaf ears.

> >personally, I think the unix philosophy of small(er) components ends up with
> >better results than one monolithic program.
> >
> Agreed, 100% and wholeheartedly.  I think the GCC approach is flawed in
> that respect.  (And many others.  I don't claim it's a great compiler.
> I only claim it has achieved the goal of portability.)

I agree it is portable.  But I thought the original point was that it is lacking. 
 
> I will not argue with you, as I think the economic analysis (by pretty
> much everyone here, especially me) tends to be amateurish, at best.  But
> I suspect you may be right, in that a BSD-based compiler could reduce
> the amount of work required to produce a new compiler for a new
> platform.  But then again, there's a "not-invented-here" attitude that
> goes with every new architecture; so perhaps not.

NIH is a problem, but many people don't like to rewrite code unless they have to.
In any case, it cannot be as bad as *GPL, as there *are* those who want to use 
publically available source, but can't due to the licensing.

> >I should point out that proverb: 'what looks good on paper doesn't necessarily
> >translate to the real world'.... (or something like that).  Look at NextStep.
> 
> I'm not sure what you're trying to prove: the NeXT was a great machine,
> years ahead of its time.  NeXTStep was easy to program for; and the NeXT
> interface and OS was well-thought-out.  (It had its problems, to be
> sure.)  It did more than look good on paper; it just looked good, period.

My point was the GNU hurd has no guarentees of success.  That's all. 

> I think the NeXT suffered from the same syndrome BSD suffers from today;
> it's technically superior, but it doesn't get the press.

NeXT's problem was Steve Jobs.  Sun came in too late in the picture to convince
them to make OpenStep.  Of course, there are parallels between that and the 
Univ. of CA Regents and the BSD licensing.

-r