From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <9ce6d910b11b7a355e5f60994fba716b@9srv.net>
From: a@9srv.net
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] x10
In-Reply-To: <79b487c902aaae69762c013d51fe580c@juice.thebigchoice.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date: Tue,  6 Apr 2004 08:53:10 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 522955e0-eacd-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

// Just look at the world of Windows. Where is all the
// BSD licensed Windows software?

um, there's not exactly a *ton* of GPL code for Win32, either. some, sure=
,
but the dearth of both is due, i believe, do the nature of the underlying
system.=20

// With no GPL I'm willing to bet that plan9 would not have gone open sou=
rce...

while i'm not willing to take that bet, i'm not backing it, either. sever=
al of
the labs folks have been fighting with lawyers to get as much out the doo=
r as
possible for years before the GPL was the force it is today. and i believ=
e the
shift in the lawyers ability to listen is due more to changes in the worl=
d at
large than to the GPL (although it likely helped).

that said, you point is probably valid: it's certainly been the case with
various hardware manufacturers that produce drivers for linux that wouldn=
't
otherwise be likely to give out the info.

anyway, i'm not looking to put down the GPL. it's fine for what it is and
what it does. it's actually *especially* useful for companies producing t=
heir
own code, all FUD aside. what strikes me as "bad" is the idea that the GP=
L
has a moral advantage over BSD/MIT licenses.

anyway, tangential references to plan9 aside, this has gone fairly far of=
f
topic. whatever license you like is fine: if i don't like it, i simply
won't use your stuff. there's always a choice.
=E3=82=A2