On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Rogelio Serrano <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 8:29 PM, Felipe Contreras > <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Rogelio Serrano >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> i think we already see that in the bsd's when companies get bsd code >>> and dont give anything back. >> >> You mean the operating systems? I think if they used GPL, then >> companies would just use something else instead. Maybe something >> proprietary, but probably Linux. >> > > well linux has the momentum right now but the bsd came first. maybe > the gpl is the reason linux overtook the bsd's or maybe its the > development process or both. maybe its just too much centralization in > the bsd development that held them back.
Or maybe something else also helped, that's impossible to know for sure. But I think nowadays it's clear that many companies use BSD because of the permissive license, if they changed to GPL, many companies would switch. >>> when you think that most significant software development will be the >>> reserve of closed proprietary companies then this is a problem. >> >> Licenses won't change that. >> > > economics will. when your it department is composed of only 3 people > and they are also the r&d then yeah you need to leverage open source > most probably gpl so a bigger company cant take your code and bitch > slap you in the face with it. Economics might, if the people making the decisions actually know what's going on. Usually the change in culture is bottom up, and yes, it's usually because of economics, but only if there's some basic culture of open source; benefits, disadvantages, etc. (not FUD) But the point remains: licenses don't change culture. > well i dont need convincing the bosses to do that. thats sort of the > strategic business policy where i work. Most people do. -- Felipe Contreras _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
