3 ms·

Even a cursory look at the open source ecosystem shows that GPL doesn't work like that. In fact, you can easily find examples that show the exact opposite: loo

by trasz 6y ago

Even a cursory look at the open source ecosystem shows that GPL doesn't work like that. In fact, you can easily find examples that show the exact opposite: look what happened to MySQL, while Postgres continues to thrive. Look at GPL-licensed X11 implementations, or GPL web servers, or DNS servers (which are pretty much nowhere).

cycloptic 6y ago
I'm not sure those are good examples. MySQL lives on with a different name (MariaDB). X11 is currently being replaced by GPL implementations of Wayland, in the form of Kwin and Mutter. As far as I know there were never any serious attempts at making GPLed alternatives to Apache httpd, nginx and BIND.
toyg 6y ago
You cannot argue on one side that Linux's success was due to commercial happenstance, as you do in another comment, and on the other hand that Postgresql's success vs MySQL is entirely due to the license. In fact, before the Sun acquisition and following mismanagement, MySQL was the opensource rdbms, the M in LAMP. When opensource started to take off and the likes of Microsoft fired back hard with FUD and lawsuits, 3 out of 4 main tools in that stack were GPL and the other was GPL-compatible. Obviously each project and field has a story; licensing and timing are both part of it. I would also argue that we are eventually going to pay for the ecosystem refusal to adopt GPL3, which is effectively "closing" away the software at another layer.
- trasz 6y ago
  I’m not saying the success of Postgres is entirely due to license; what I’m saying is the license is not a significant factor. MySQL was always the more popular database, true. But it was also the one technically inferior, a PHP of databases. As for GPL3 - on the contrary, the problem is the adoption of GPL3, which forced many parties to switch to non-GPL alternatives. But it also gave boost to Open Source alternatives, putting an end to the unhealthy monopoly of GNU toolchain.
  - toyg 6y ago
    > the problem is the adoption of GPL3, which forced many parties to switch to non-GPL alternatives. Those are the same sort of businesses that, back in the '90s, would take BSD code and ship it without giving anything back. They were using GPL code only because they could respect the letter of the license while ignoring the spirit, thanks to coincidental technological changes (the move from PCs to server-based architectures). This problem keeps coming up and promotes a parasitic business model. We'd be better served in the long run, as an ecosystem, by trying to find business models that work with GPL3.
    - trasz 6y ago
      Companies which don’t contribute - just sell code written by others - don’t mind GPL. GPL can be the problem for the rest, as it forces them to immediately donate all their changes to their competitors, who can then offer the same thing cheaper, since they don’t have to amortize the development costs.

by trasz 6y ago

cycloptic 6y ago

I'm not sure those are good examples. MySQL lives on with a different name (MariaDB). X11 is currently being replaced by GPL implementations of Wayland, in the form of Kwin and Mutter. As far as I know there were never any serious attempts at making GPLed alternatives to Apache httpd, nginx and BIND.

toyg 6y ago

You cannot argue on one side that Linux's success was due to commercial happenstance, as you do in another comment, and on the other hand that Postgresql's success vs MySQL is entirely due to the license. In fact, before the Sun acquisition and following mismanagement, MySQL was the opensource rdbms, the M in LAMP. When opensource started to take off and the likes of Microsoft fired back hard with FUD and lawsuits, 3 out of 4 main tools in that stack were GPL and the other was GPL-compatible. Obviously each project and field has a story; licensing and timing are both part of it. I would also argue that we are eventually going to pay for the ecosystem refusal to adopt GPL3, which is effectively "closing" away the software at another layer.

trasz 6y ago
I’m not saying the success of Postgres is entirely due to license; what I’m saying is the license is not a significant factor. MySQL was always the more popular database, true. But it was also the one technically inferior, a PHP of databases. As for GPL3 - on the contrary, the problem is the adoption of GPL3, which forced many parties to switch to non-GPL alternatives. But it also gave boost to Open Source alternatives, putting an end to the unhealthy monopoly of GNU toolchain.
- toyg 6y ago
  > the problem is the adoption of GPL3, which forced many parties to switch to non-GPL alternatives. Those are the same sort of businesses that, back in the '90s, would take BSD code and ship it without giving anything back. They were using GPL code only because they could respect the letter of the license while ignoring the spirit, thanks to coincidental technological changes (the move from PCs to server-based architectures). This problem keeps coming up and promotes a parasitic business model. We'd be better served in the long run, as an ecosystem, by trying to find business models that work with GPL3.
  - trasz 6y ago
    Companies which don’t contribute - just sell code written by others - don’t mind GPL. GPL can be the problem for the rest, as it forces them to immediately donate all their changes to their competitors, who can then offer the same thing cheaper, since they don’t have to amortize the development costs.