Draft 1 of the OpenDesk.com Public Source License

Brian Behlendorf brian at collab.net
Thu Nov 18 20:41:55 UTC 1999


On Thu, 18 Nov 1999, David Starner wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 18, 1999 at 10:38:38AM -0800, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> > 
> > Sure.  And the amount of code sharing between NetBSD, OpenBSD, and FreeBSD
> > is *much* greater, as best I can tell, than the code sharing between the
> > various Linux distributions.
> 
> How? Linux distributions, for the most part, have the same upstream source
> - to which most apply small, if any, patches to - for the main shell, for the 
> kernel, for shellutils, for fileutils, for libc, 

I'm not just talking about the kernel, I'm talking about the distributions
as a whole.  And I'm not going to get scientific and quantifiable about
it, I'm just relaying my experiences as a serious Linux (I run Debian on
my Vaio) and BSD (FreeBSD is what I run on most of my servers) user.
Dealing with the whole libc debacle has burned me pretty badly.  The LSB
is a great effort and I hope it really does result in less frivolous
divergence between the distributions, but since all but one of the distros
are commercial endeavors, there is always going to be a drive to see
"value-add" and "differentiation" that may not be technically based.
Whereas, *BSDs are all centrally not-for-profit (not non-profit, just
not-for-profit), so there is much less ego attached to the notion of
projects sharing code.  For example, even though OpenBSD might have a more
aggressive pool of code auditors, the bugs they fix do get pulled over to
FreeBSD and NetBSD, by and large.  Things could be better, of course - the
ports collection could be a shared resource between *BSD's.

> for most of the stuff that 
> the BSDs have seperate versions for.  

The utils aren't all that different between them, actually.  

> Anyway, I specifically didn't mention the free BSD's, as the reason they 
> forked probably has little to do with the license. 

Forking usually has very little to do with licenses.

> I was discussing SunOS,
> Aix, BSDi and the other proprietary Unixs that took some to most of their 
> code from BSD.

SunOS has been dead a long time.  BSDI is struggling.  AIX is several
generations past its BSD origins.  *BSD has more market share, I'd
estimate, than the three of those combined.  While BSD gave those
companies a temporary advantage, by keeping the fork proprietary those
companies missed out on further development.  Which is the main point the
BSD advocates make - more often than not, proprietary forks
provide a short-term advantage at best.  Sometimes that short-term
advantage is necessary to bring players into the space, but ultimately
they will find that participating in the project and differentiating
elsewhere is the most successful strategy.

	Brian






More information about the License-discuss mailing list