Subject: Re: Why EROS is Open Source
From: Ben Laurie <>
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 10:39:58 +0000

"Stephen J. Turnbull" wrote:
>     >> clear.  Could it change? Time will tell.  I made a call with
>     >> EROS that was the best call I felt I could make at the time.
>     Ben> That's a really dumb comparison to make, for the obvious
>     Ben> reason that the inevitable conclusion we must reach, if we
>     Ben> believe the comparison has any use, is that we should all go
>     Ben> and work for Microsoft.
> I can't make head nor tail of this.  Help!

If the conclusion is that the "most popular" thing has the better
licence, then we know that Windows is even more popular than Linux or
FreeBSD, and hence we should adopt that licence.

>     Ben> I do sometimes wonder what this tells us about Linux as
>     Ben> compared to BSD.  For some reason, that old saw about bad and
>     Ben> good money keeps popping into my head.
> Why?

Don't ask me, I'm not a psychologist.

> It strikes me that one of BSD's problems may be that Linux distributions
> can, and do, include lots and lots of BSD/MIT X/etc-licensed code.  As
> I understand it, the BSD distributions do not include much GPLed code.
> Is that true?  If so, Linux has a clear advantage because of the lack
> of "Not Licensed Like Me" syndrome, and probably on average has better
> code and certainly more of it.

Hmm. I don't think there's any particular bias against GPLed code, and
I'm not really aware that BSD distributions are particularly less
featureful than Linux distributions. I'm pretty sure my FreeBSD boxes
are stuffed full of GPLed code.




"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
     - Indira Gandhi