

The first open source Unix based OS wasn't Linux. - chris11
http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/05/17/386bsd/print.html

======
rbanffy
As much as the BSD developers should blame themselves, AT&T and Linus, I think
most of BSD's lack of mindshare stems from the BSD license itself.

The BSD license encourages (or, at the very least, does not prohibit)
companies from taking away stuff from the codebase, enhance it and run, never
to look back until they need another software infusion. This does not make it
easy for companies like Intel, IBM, Red Hat ot SGI to commit resources to the
project, knowing that any other company can take what they developed and close
it up. "Show me yours and I will show you mine".

GPL-like licenses prohibit such behaviour and are, perhaps, the reason why
there is so much more GPL-ed software around than BSD-ed. That's why the same
companies I mentioned before can feel comfortable that while others may use
their Linux contributions, they will also be able to use everybody else's code
forever. For me, using GPL for community-developed software is a no-brainer.
It's not debatable it created a vibrant ecosystem around Linux.

The viability of BSD-ish licenses to create such ecosystems is, however, quite
debatable. The Apache Foundation has several projects under such licenses that
receive regular investment from big industry players.

Although I doubt there will ever be a clear-cut conclusion, it's fun to watch
and participate on the debate.

~~~
bad_user
I don't think so. As much as free-software advocates like to pat themselves on
the back, there are many projects out there that succeeded gaining popularity
without a restrictive license like the GPL, and I also think that the GPL is
so popular purely by fashion and because its restrictions are irrelevant for
web-based applications.

A project's success can only be attributed to the people working on it, and to
sheer luck.

Of course, it is kind of an incentive for companies to contribute back and for
the community to have some legal protection, that's why I understand the need
for LGPL or MPL. But GPL itself should not be considered open-source ... all
the software you or I wrote is and will always be a derivate of public domain,
and the usage of a library should not dictate the distribution rights of the
final product, but only the distribution rights of the library in question.
It's kind of ironic that proprietary platforms like dotNET are more open in
this regard.

Also, I don't think Apple did more harm to open-source than Red Hat did. At
least they don't pretend to be some kind of saviors of humanity.

~~~
cabalamat
> _But GPL itself should not be considered open-source_

The term "open source" has a clear, accepted, and well-understood definition
-- <http://opensource.org/docs/osd> \-- and the GPL clearly meets this
definition. If you don't like the GPL, fine. But don't say that it isn't open
source, because that's just not true.

If you choose to give your own private meanings to words, you risk being
misunderstood. You also risk being seen as dishonest.

~~~
bad_user
I know the term has rules for being used, but those rules are too permissive
if GPL is accepted (not to mention GPL 3 which now includes hardware
restrictions).

If I want to run away with a library and do my own thing, I don't see a
problem with that if I'm giving back the changes to the library itself.
Otherwise it cannot be viewed as a public good, as some might suggest. You
can't compare a public good, such as a road to GPL software, because you
aren't required to transport your merchandise for free on that road ... I
know, stupid analogy, but you get my point.

Proprietary software shouldn't be considered a virus that we should get rid
of, that's not an open mindset in my book.

~~~
rbanffy
"GPL 3 which now includes hardware restrictions"?!

WTF?! GPL3 _FORBIDS_ hardware restrictions! It protects _YOUR_ right to use
_YOUR STUFF_ the way _YOU_ want.

How that could possibly be construed as a restriction?

------
cturner
"When you haven't been involved, you don't know that Bill Joy threw something
in late one night, or Dennis Ritchie wrote something up as an expedient. "

What are some examples of such things?

~~~
gamache
Heh, you expect to get details like that from a Salon journalist?

------
chris11
This is a pretty good example of why software should be released early and
often. They managed to destroy all their momentum with an 18 month long
development cycle.

~~~
dkarl
You have to wonder what their primary goal was. Perhaps they pursued their
primary goal (a modern Unix with elegant internals) very intelligently and
diligently and hoped that their secondary goals (users, developers, and
influence) would materialize as a result. Or perhaps their primary goal was to
win acceptance for their idea that Unix internals are crufty and deserve
rethinking -- and perhaps they achieved that goal.

If winning users and developers was their primary goal and not just a
secondary hope, then they got spanked and sent home, but I don't get that
impression from the interview.

