> And, yes, it is about who's in control; I don't see what's bad about that.
I wasn't suggesting that there's something bad about it. I just get annoyed when people start talking about the freedom in GPL.
> Linux is one example of thriving GPL code, while the BSD-licensed competitors are dramatically less popular
In the case of Linux, I think we can all agree that a large part of its success is due to its creator that's a wonderful leader. 386BSD on the other hand had fewer contributions because of the strict development policies of its creators regarding external contributions.
Of course, I'm not saying that the GPL wasn't a component of its success, but I think people overestimate its role in all this. After all, BSD is a lot more popular than GNU Hurd.
From what I remember of what I read of the history of linux - it was the fact that BSD code was tied up in some kind of court case when linux was first introduced that allowed it to get a leg-up on the BSDs; because no one would risk basing anything on an OS that may not be available in the future.
I wasn't suggesting that there's something bad about it. I just get annoyed when people start talking about the freedom in GPL.
> Linux is one example of thriving GPL code, while the BSD-licensed competitors are dramatically less popular
In the case of Linux, I think we can all agree that a large part of its success is due to its creator that's a wonderful leader. 386BSD on the other hand had fewer contributions because of the strict development policies of its creators regarding external contributions.
Of course, I'm not saying that the GPL wasn't a component of its success, but I think people overestimate its role in all this. After all, BSD is a lot more popular than GNU Hurd.