Linked by Michael L. Love on Mon 3rd Nov 2003 19:19 UTC
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
More News »
Sponsored Links



What I'm trying to say is that "Linux" may not have become what it is today, but some other equivalent project probably would have - with or without the GPL.
I'm not talking about an equivalent project, I'm talking about Linux in particular.
Look at it this way: what other free OS has achieved Linux's notoriety? None. Now, if the BSDL is so superior to the GPL (and therefore RMS's contribution is negligible), then why is it that the BSDs aren't more popular than Linux? It can't just be the mascot...
We can talk about what could have been, or what has actually happened. I believe that the GPL is part of the reason of Linux's success. You have not presented any arguments that could lead me to think otherwise.