alt Hacker NewsI think this is largely an illusion. Most open-source software isn't that successful, so it might seem like the choice of license didn't really matter for their success. But you'll notice that all of the big, successful open-source projects are either GPL, or can't be GPL because of the GPLs murky legality around linking (the article mostly hinges on such a case - LLVM).
The author talks about GPL projects feeding back on themselves to create technological dominance. But it's much more than that. GPL encourages organizational dominance, too. It starts with watch dogs looking out for GPL violations. And it ends with a big nonprofit foundation providing training and paying developer's salaries. Why did Linux blast past BSD? The popular story is that some company was trying to claim ownership over BSD. But the same thing happened to Linux a decade or so later with SCO. I think the license created a no-win situation for anyone who wanted to create their own Unix-based OS. If it wasn't Linux-compatible, it wasn't valuable. And nobody could keep up with Linux's rapid pace of development. So everyone gave up and started contributing to Linux, causing the pace of development to increase even more. Now, Linux has what, a million commits per year? Something insane like that. Try achieving that with a BSD license.
Replies
I think that the SCO threat to Linux also came at a time when Linux was pretty immune from such a threat. If it's the early-90s and there's two options in their infancy and one had AT&T (one of the 5 largest companies) threatening it, you'll go with the other. In 1993, you're not using BSD or Linux and making a choice between them. The legal threat weighs heavy there.
When SCO sued IBM, people were already using Linux including one of the biggest and most trusted names in computing (at the time): IBM. Migrating away from something is a hard choice. Likewise, Linux had IBM's army of lawyers defending it (yes, BSD was defended by UC Berkeley, but the school could have easily folded over a project that wasn't part of the school's core mission). SCO also wasn't much of a threat - they were a dying company trying to win a case against the biggest names in the industry.
It's a lot easier to spread FUD against something no one is currently using that has a viable alternative. In 1993, Linux and BSD may have been equal, but AT&T's legal threat carried weight. People choosing one or the other weren't already using one. By 2003, 25% of the internet was powered by Linux. People were already using it and weren't going to be scared away by the claims of a dying corporation while powerful companies were defending Linux.
You say yourself that if something wasn't Linux compatible, it wasn't valuable and so everyone had to be chasing and reimplementing Linux compatibility. But if BSD had been established for a decade and Linux was chasing BSD compatibility in 2003 and then SCO sued BSD, BSD would still have maintained dominance.
When a company claimed ownership matters. Which company claimed ownership matters. "How big" the OS was when the challenge came matters.
Frankly, reset Linux adoption to 0. Have everyone use BSD for 2-4 years. Then reintroduce Linux. You won't end up with Linux dominance. You'll end up with BSD dominance. Linux had a multi-year head start. As you note, once you become the dominant target, everyone else is chasing you. If BSD had a multi-year head start, Linux would have been chasing BSD and the roles would be swapped.
> all of the big, successful open-source projects are either GPL, or can't be GPL because of the GPLs murky legality around linking (the article mostly hinges on such a case - LLVM).
Another comment trivially points out that this isn't true: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44607038