On Wednesday 03 January 2007 11:53, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On 03-Jan-07, at 11:22 AM, jtd wrote:
because of the licence which fosters a certain development model. As KG puts it "it's the development model, not the licence".
there are two main development models going:
- 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.
Agreed.
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.
That is definetly not the requirement of the gpl. It is the requirement of the organisation. And will eventually cause a fork. Eg X.org.
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.
Indeed. But u are looking at good behaviour. How do you account for the innumerable known - never mind uknown - bad ones under BSD style models. In utopia u would not require a licence at all. the purpose of the licence is to ensure good behaviour. Relying on market forces is a roll of the dice. Critical mass is an essential to anything, open or closed. That is what keeps M$ going. How did it get the tech to get that critical mass ? suck BSD and friends whenever neccessary. Counter point they could be sucking GNU too and one wouldn't know. But imo they would not risk that.