frank at shute.org.uk
Sat Mar 6 12:26:53 UTC 2010
On Sat, Mar 06, 2010 at 02:44:47AM -0600, Sam Fourman Jr. wrote:
> > To be honest, I think the licence puts off most of the commercial
> > entities. Which is a *good* thing.
> Explain your point on this? BSD is supposed to be commercial friendly.
> Sam Fourman Jr.
I saw Linux go from a sort of hobbiest system to what it is now, where
most of the patches come from RedHat, IBM and Novell.
These patches are focussed on whatever those big companies are
focussed on ATM which doesn't necessarily coincide with what the
user base wants.
For instance, who cares that Linux is patched to run on IBM Z-series?
IBM. Not me.
So you get a lot of cruft in the kernel which has nothing to do with
the desires of the user base but it's what a PHB at IBM wants.
Yes, there are companies whom use and support FreeBSD but their say
on FreeBSD development is limited and usually welcome. I'm thinking of
My belief is that the FreeBSD license puts off the big commercial
players because it's written in clear English and can be written on
half a page of A4.
This puts the ball in the PHB's court unlike the GPL's reams of
legalese which is punted along to the legal department. i.e the PHB
can pass the buck and hence GPL software is used.
That's just a guess. I can't think why a license, that allows more
freedom than an obtuse license that is dependent on the uncertain
interpretation of a judge, is used.
Contact info: http://www.shute.org.uk/misc/contact.html
More information about the freebsd-chat