On 27/10/06 16:10 +0530, jtd wrote: <snip>
That apart, the majority of coders prefer that their works are not misapropriated and hence prefer to gpl their work, which results in a one way migration of code from bsd to linux.
I know more people who put out code under the BSD license than the GPL.
<snip>
IBM happened.
why did it not happen to BSD? couldnt be the licence?
Customers were asking IBM for Linux. Keep in mind that the biggest driving factor for IBM was server sales. IBM was basically losing out to whitebox vendors on the basis of price alone. That was due to quite a bit of hype being garnered by Linux (and the fact that newer admins tended to be more familiar with Linux than *BSD). The fact that the BSDs took longer to support IDE was a significant factor in admins being more experienced with Linux than *BSD.
The license doesn't have _much_ to do with the populatiry of Linux.
<snip>
kernel or gcc, you need to give up some freedoms to make sure the essential freedoms are maintained no matter what. Otherwise you may
Misconception (or inapropriate words). Permission to treat others less equally than yourself is not freedom, it's exploitation. The gpl does not ask u to give up freedom. It tells u treat others exactly equally. .
-- Rgds JTD