| ▲ | soperj 5 hours ago | |||||||
> Linux, for one, for what I can tell never cared too much about the GPL. The reason that Linux actually succeeded where BSD didn't is because of the GPL. MIT licensed stuff(if it's any good) just ends up being incorporated into someone else's commercial product, with no contributions. | ||||||||
| ▲ | craftkiller 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||
> no contributions That's just obviously not true. Check out the commit history on FreeBSD and look at all the contributions from Netflix. Off the top of my head they contributed kTLS and asynchronous sendfile which made it such that a single syscall could send the full contents of a file over a socket even with TLS. Grepping through the git logs for the "Sponsored by" lines shows these top results:
One company that isn't in that list but shows up as an author is Datto which gave us native encryption on ZFS (shout out to Tom for writing that!) | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| ▲ | tehologist 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |||||||
Linux success has nothing to do with GPL and everything to do with a lawsuit and timing. Linus himself said if it wasn't for the lawsuit Linux probably would not exist. | ||||||||
| ▲ | bch 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |||||||
> The reason that Linux actually succeeded where BSD didn't is because of the GPL. Linux succeeded where BSD was tied-up in a lawsuit[0] from AT&T and the fear of “picking the wrong horse” w BSD under threat allowed Linux to slide into public consciousness and installs. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNIX_System_Laboratories,_Inc..... | ||||||||
| ▲ | iamnothere 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |||||||
BSD was tied up in lawsuits for years, giving Linux a head start. | ||||||||
| ▲ | tehologist 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||
Also why did you mention MIT licensed, it is obviously BSD licensed. | ||||||||