On 03-Jan-07, at 11:22 AM, jtd wrote:
And that is precisely my point. How come it fell behind. IMO because of the licence which fosters a certain development model. As KG puts it "it's the development model, not the licence". I dont agree wholly with that as it's essentially the licence which creates the eco system and also gurantees good behaviour by the participants, over short term gains.
there are two main development models going:
1. an organisation or company running the show, planning the direction 2. a meritocracy running the show, planning the direction
anything under the first model - regardless of the license - is in danger. Good examples are mysql and mono - both under GPL
even the second model is in danger *unless* it has reached critical mass. By critical mass, I mean it has sufficient base of developers that make sure that no one person or one group can subvert it. Linux kernel has that critical mass. And a surprisingly large number of applications dont have it - and are in danger.
as for gpl creating good behaviour - remember it is because of gpl that mysql and mono have no external developer base. Every would be developer has to assign copyright of his work to the owners. This constraint is not there in BSD style applications like postgresql. And, like it or not, it *does* make a huge difference.
I would venture that apache too has reached critical mass.