From: "Peter Gordon" <peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Les Mikesell wrote:
Peter Gordon wrote:
and would need to continuously prove their superiority to
potential users and developers in other ways (such as: What is the quality
of
the codebase? What attention is paid to proactive security?
I don't see how the license has any bearing at all here. Can you give
an example of Linux vs. (say) one of the *BSD's where using the GPL
matters in this regard.
The license has bearing here because it if were a BSD-like license, then
they would be competing (in theory) on features along, not the overall
user experience or quality of code.
> Yes, preventing many similar useful products.
Please name one specific product example that has been prevented from being
marketed and/or sold by the GPL.
An OSX like system, complete with drivers for all hardware and other
licensed components along with a GPL'd kernel.
Wrong! OS X is based on FreeBSD's code, and other open source things
which Apple has released under their APSL (whose recent revisions *are*
GPL-compatible, if I recall correctly). Apple is in no way required to keep
their OS X kernel open source, yet they do anyway because of the good
community PR and development support it gains for them.
One might be able to repeat that "Wrong!" right back atcha if something
I read yesterday on slashdot was right. The rumor was that Apple was
taking the OS back to closed source. {^_-}
{^_^}
