How much of that choice has had an effect on Linux' success is hard to measure. It might have meant everything and it might have meant nothing. I'm thinking it meant nothing, looking at how the BSDs are doing just fine without the GPL.
Yeah, yet Linux has grown WAY faster than any of the *BSDs have.
I wonder if the fact that developers have to give back to the project because of the GPL terms has anything to do with it, hum?
Yeah, yet Linux has grown WAY faster than any of the *BSDs have.
Linux has a larger market share, it has the people and the hype. That does not really mean dick. Windows has that too. Vista, anyone? ;-p In terms of technology and usability, Linux is hardly WAY ahead of the BSDs. It is in fact behind in some areas (and vice versa).
I wonder if the fact that developers have to give back to the project because of the GPL terms has anything to do with it, hum?
You don't seem to wonder, you seem to be sure. Care to give a more elaborate explanation that actually makes sense?
Allow me to mention that the dominant SSH implementation is OpenSSH. It is BSD licensed. Nobody has to give anything, yet they do. Why is that, you think?
I think Linux just happened to appear at the right time and place, and that the GPL was chosen because Linus wanted to be sure he got code back. I think he'd have gotten it regardless, but that's hard to prove (and not that interesting anyway).
You don't seem to wonder, you seem to be sure. Care to give a more elaborate explanation that actually makes sense?
Of course I'm certain, maybe I should have used [sarcasm] tags... :-\
When working on a project, I enjoy the challenge of it. But for me thats not enough.
I know that there is always someone out there that can do better, so if they do chose to hack on my code, I would sure as hell like to see exactly what changes they made so that I can learn from it. Isn't that what Open Source is about?
The big problem with BSD licensing as I see it is that the person changing the code does not have to give back to the original programmer/community. Of course many do, because their ethical beliefs compel them to, but thats all.
Start counting the number of times code is taken from BSD and never given back: MacOSX, AIX, Solaris, and even Windows. Have any of those projects given back as much as they have taken?
Don't you think that has an influence on the growth of the original open source project?
The GPL makes sure that the code used between projects is not like a one-way street, with one party giving and the other party only taking.
Allow me to mention that the dominant SSH implementation is OpenSSH. It is BSD licensed.
True.
Yet BSD distributions use GPL's desktop environments such as GNOME and KDE. Why is that?
Why is Java being gradually released under the GPL? Why is Qt GPL-licensed?
The reasons I gave above answer that.
Nobody has to give anything, yet they do. Why is that, you think?
Answered above.
I think Linux just happened to appear at the right time and place,
Maybe...
and that the GPL was chosen because Linus wanted to be sure he got code back.
Exactly, you said it!
I think he'd have gotten it regardless, but that's hard to prove (and not that interesting anyway).
But he wouldn't have got it back *for sure*, would he?
Yet BSD distributions use GPL's desktop environments such as GNOME and KDE. Why is that?
I don't mean to be rude, but that has to be the dumbest question I've seen in a while. They use it because it's available and it's free software! Why should they not use it?
Why is Qt GPL-licensed?
It is dual-licensed (GPL and some commercial license).
Start counting the number of times code is taken from BSD and never given back
I can count how many times BSD code has been used, but I cannot tell you how much has been given back. Neither can you.
MacOSX, AIX, Solaris, and even Windows. Have any of those projects given back as much as they have taken?
Have the commercial GNU/Linux distributions given back as much as they have taken? Hardly. And I think we should be glad that Microsoft used the BSD sockets code rather than coughing up their own incompatible poo.
I would sure as hell like to see exactly what changes they made so that I can learn from it.
So would I, but I think that should a choice, not a requirement. Others will feel different about it, and that's fine by me.
Isn't that what Open Source is about?
I think that's what Free Software is supposed to be about (yes, there's a difference.)
But he wouldn't have got it back *for sure*, would he?
No, he would not. And he's not getting things back for sure now, either. People, and companies, are allowed to modify the kernel and never have to show anyone the code. That rule only apply when you distribute.
Oh, and what about, say, NVIDIA? They have these "neat" drivers for Linux, but does Linus, or anyone else in the community, have that code? No. We get a binary blob. So much for giving back.
Have the commercial GNU/Linux distributions given back as much as they have taken? Hardly.
Who employs folks like Ingo Molnar and Ulrich Drepper? RedHat. Who imploys Miguel de Icaza and friends? Oh, wait, that's Novell, the current home of SuSE. That's not just giving back patches, that's a gift that keeps on giving!
Aside from actually sponsoring many kernel and user space developers, you're also forgetting the QA, support and polish these folks bring to the table. It's this work that gives Linux the legitimacy and acceptance that continues to attract new talent and new ideas. They give back plenty.
Now, is that a function of the GPL license? That's hard to really ascertain. Empirically, projects that base themselves on a BSD tend to fork (FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, DragonflyBSD, Darwin), but there still seems to be a fair bit of cross pollination across the forks that remain public. Projects that base themselves around Linux and GPL tend to fold changes back into mainline and instead differentiate themselves at some higher, softer level—the distro level.
It's almost as if the level at which differentiation begins and persists is determined by the level at which you no longer are compelled to "share back." For BSD-licensed software, I posit differentiation begins at the source level. For GPL-licensed software, I posit differentiation begins at the stuff wrapped around it and how it's bundled—the distro or turnkey application level.
Sure they do, and we all appreciate that. I wasn't saying they're not giving anything back, I was saying they have not given back as much as they have taken, which I believe to be true. Not that it bothers me the slightest, though.
... projects that base themselves on a BSD tend to fork (FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, DragonflyBSD, Darwin),
Debian, Ubuntu, Gentoo, Fedora, Mint, SUSE, Mandriva, Red Hat, and so on. What was your point again?
GPL tend to fold changes back into mainline...
If by "mainline" you mean Linux (the kernel), then I agree. But Linux is "just" a kernel. Personally I think the various GNU/Linux distributions are more dissimilar than the BSDs.
From the beginning, regardless of license, the Linux crowd has had a different mindset than the BSD crowd. It's as much a culture difference as it is anything else.
That said, having multiple free OSes, each with its own shade of meaning applied to "free", gives everyone a home. If you don't like the GPL license but prefer BSD, then go with a BSD, and vice versa. If you only had GPL or only had BSD, some people may not even come to the party. The variety helps everyone, just as BSD advancements have helped Linux and vice versa.
Best. Choice. Ever.
Best. Choice. Ever.
Best choice ever.
How much of that choice has had an effect on Linux' success is hard to measure. It might have meant everything and it might have meant nothing. I'm thinking it meant nothing, looking at how the BSDs are doing just fine without the GPL.
Yeah, yet Linux has grown
Yeah, yet Linux has grown WAY faster than any of the *BSDs have.
I wonder if the fact that developers have to give back to the project because of the GPL terms has anything to do with it, hum?
Nah
Linux has a larger market share, it has the people and the hype. That does not really mean dick. Windows has that too. Vista, anyone? ;-p In terms of technology and usability, Linux is hardly WAY ahead of the BSDs. It is in fact behind in some areas (and vice versa).
You don't seem to wonder, you seem to be sure. Care to give a more elaborate explanation that actually makes sense?
Allow me to mention that the dominant SSH implementation is OpenSSH. It is BSD licensed. Nobody has to give anything, yet they do. Why is that, you think?
I think Linux just happened to appear at the right time and place, and that the GPL was chosen because Linus wanted to be sure he got code back. I think he'd have gotten it regardless, but that's hard to prove (and not that interesting anyway).
Yah
Of course I'm certain, maybe I should have used [sarcasm] tags... :-\
When working on a project, I enjoy the challenge of it. But for me thats not enough.
I know that there is always someone out there that can do better, so if they do chose to hack on my code, I would sure as hell like to see exactly what changes they made so that I can learn from it. Isn't that what Open Source is about?
The big problem with BSD licensing as I see it is that the person changing the code does not have to give back to the original programmer/community. Of course many do, because their ethical beliefs compel them to, but thats all.
Start counting the number of times code is taken from BSD and never given back: MacOSX, AIX, Solaris, and even Windows. Have any of those projects given back as much as they have taken?
Don't you think that has an influence on the growth of the original open source project?
The GPL makes sure that the code used between projects is not like a one-way street, with one party giving and the other party only taking.
True.
Yet BSD distributions use GPL's desktop environments such as GNOME and KDE. Why is that?
Why is Java being gradually released under the GPL? Why is Qt GPL-licensed?
The reasons I gave above answer that.
Answered above.
Maybe...
Exactly, you said it!
But he wouldn't have got it back *for sure*, would he?
Why BSD use GPL code
I don't mean to be rude, but that has to be the dumbest question I've seen in a while. They use it because it's available and it's free software! Why should they not use it?
It is dual-licensed (GPL and some commercial license).
Gray, not black and white.
I can count how many times BSD code has been used, but I cannot tell you how much has been given back. Neither can you.
Have the commercial GNU/Linux distributions given back as much as they have taken? Hardly. And I think we should be glad that Microsoft used the BSD sockets code rather than coughing up their own incompatible poo.
So would I, but I think that should a choice, not a requirement. Others will feel different about it, and that's fine by me.
I think that's what Free Software is supposed to be about (yes, there's a difference.)
No, he would not. And he's not getting things back for sure now, either. People, and companies, are allowed to modify the kernel and never have to show anyone the code. That rule only apply when you distribute.
Oh, and what about, say, NVIDIA? They have these "neat" drivers for Linux, but does Linus, or anyone else in the community, have that code? No. We get a binary blob. So much for giving back.
Have the commercial
Who employs folks like Ingo Molnar and Ulrich Drepper? RedHat. Who imploys Miguel de Icaza and friends? Oh, wait, that's Novell, the current home of SuSE. That's not just giving back patches, that's a gift that keeps on giving!
Aside from actually sponsoring many kernel and user space developers, you're also forgetting the QA, support and polish these folks bring to the table. It's this work that gives Linux the legitimacy and acceptance that continues to attract new talent and new ideas. They give back plenty.
Now, is that a function of the GPL license? That's hard to really ascertain. Empirically, projects that base themselves on a BSD tend to fork (FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, DragonflyBSD, Darwin), but there still seems to be a fair bit of cross pollination across the forks that remain public. Projects that base themselves around Linux and GPL tend to fold changes back into mainline and instead differentiate themselves at some higher, softer level—the distro level.
It's almost as if the level at which differentiation begins and persists is determined by the level at which you no longer are compelled to "share back." For BSD-licensed software, I posit differentiation begins at the source level. For GPL-licensed software, I posit differentiation begins at the stuff wrapped around it and how it's bundled—the distro or turnkey application level.
--
Program Intellivision and play Space Patrol!
Giving back
Sure they do, and we all appreciate that. I wasn't saying they're not giving anything back, I was saying they have not given back as much as they have taken, which I believe to be true. Not that it bothers me the slightest, though.
Debian, Ubuntu, Gentoo, Fedora, Mint, SUSE, Mandriva, Red Hat, and so on. What was your point again?
If by "mainline" you mean Linux (the kernel), then I agree. But Linux is "just" a kernel. Personally I think the various GNU/Linux distributions are more dissimilar than the BSDs.
Hmmm...
From the beginning, regardless of license, the Linux crowd has had a different mindset than the BSD crowd. It's as much a culture difference as it is anything else.
That said, having multiple free OSes, each with its own shade of meaning applied to "free", gives everyone a home. If you don't like the GPL license but prefer BSD, then go with a BSD, and vice versa. If you only had GPL or only had BSD, some people may not even come to the party. The variety helps everyone, just as BSD advancements have helped Linux and vice versa.
--
Program Intellivision and play Space Patrol!