Subject: Re: FSBs and client-server
From: Brian Behlendorf <brian@collab.net>
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 00:21:59 -0700 (PDT)

On 25 May 2000, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>    From: kmself@ix.netcom.com
>    Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 13:49:28 -0700
> 
>    Brian and I were debating (mildly) benefits of various licensing models
>    recently.  He made a point I'm still mulling over WRT the BSD/MIT
>    license -- it's a very strong vehicle for promoting adoption of an open
>    standard.  Because these licenses allow both free and proprietary
>    modifications to the codebase, a standard can be proposed, implemented
>    in a free solution, while still being available for proprietary
>    implementation from the same code base.
> 
> I expect this would work best if the free implementations dominate.
> Otherwise it's hard to resist the impulse to embrace and extend.

Agreed; which is why I'm very interested in finding other pressures to
help facilitate the free development.  Anecdotally, every commercial
spin-off from Apache (that I know of) that has not kept its changes in
sync with Apache's and contributed back any core changes has not become
predominant; I think that's because of momentum in the development cycle,
more so than product dominance.  People don't want to proprietary-fork
because they probably won't be able to keep up.  =)

> There is something to be said for independent implementations of a
> standard.

Yea, the IETF requires it (dunno if a fork would be accepted as
independent in their eyes though.)

> Having a MIT-license Kerberos implementation made it easier for
> Microsoft to embrace and extend the standard.  On the other hand,
> without an MIT-license implementation, Microsoft probably wouldn't
> have used Kerberos at all.

Precisely the point I made to Karsten.

	Brian