Keith G. Murphy wrote:
> In the interests of exactitude, shouldn't that really be something like
> "adversely affects the willingness"? Or "discourages commercial
> entities from contributing..."? (Though the latter is actually a bit
> too strong for my liking).
Not to mention the fact that anyone who chooses to take a look around
the universe will find at least as many commercial entities contributing
to well-known GPL'd software as to well-known BSD'd software.
Oracle supports Linux, not xxxBSD. IBM supports Linux, not xxxBSD.
Note that I'm not arguing the merits of either license here, only the
fact that the common argument that the GPL discourages commercial
investment while the BSD license encourages it does not appear to
reflect reality.
> It's not like the GPL really *prevents* them from contributing...
Nor does it prevent one from distributing the same software under a
different license, as TrollTech does. GPL if you build GPL'd software
for Linux, a proprietary $$$ license in other cases - a situation
accepted by none other than RMS (who is not my favorite person, either,
though I personally like the GPL).
--
Don Baccus
Portland, OR
http://donb.photo.net, http://birdnotes.net, http://openacs.org
