Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 29th Mar 2006 11:28 UTC, submitted by anonymous
OpenBSD "Even if you don't use OpenBSD, you're likely to be benefiting from it unknowingly. If you're using Solaris, SCO UnixWare, OS X, SUSE Linux, or Red Hat Enterprise Linux, chances are you're using the OpenBSD-developed OpenSSH for secure shell access to remote machines. If so many are using this software, why are so few paying for it? Official responses (and non-responses) from Sun Microsystems, IBM, Novell, and Red Hat are below, but if you're one of the freeloaders who hasn't contributed to OpenBSD or OpenSSH, what's your excuse?"
Thread beginning with comment 109222
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Licensing Effects
by mjpackard on Wed 29th Mar 2006 16:10 UTC in reply to "Licensing Effects"
mjpackard
Member since:
2006-03-29

I've always had problems with people saying Linux took off over BSD in the corporate world because of the license. Linux did not take off because of the license. It took off because of press and buzz words. Red hat became a company that started to sell Linux and services for Linux. Press started, and then you develop a snow ball effect. This did not occur for BSD. IBM, Dell, SGI, Sun, and Novell jumped on the bandwagon because the name Linux would be recognized by management because its name is in the rags. They could not sell BSD bacause of "BSD, What's that?"

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Licensing Effects
by g2devi on Wed 29th Mar 2006 17:26 in reply to "RE: Licensing Effects"
g2devi Member since:
2005-07-09

> It took off because of press and buzz words. Red hat
> became a company that started to sell Linux and
> services for Linux.

You forgot to mention one small thing, BSD had tons of support from the beginning. Before 1997, if you mentioned Linux in virtually any company, no-one would know what you were talking about. But there was a reasonable chance that they knew BSD, and OpenBSD's security reputation gave even more credence to the BSD community.

IMO, the sitation reversed because of two reasons:

* Linus decided to let go control of the Linux kernel (something BSD maintainers have a hard time doing) but kept order by accepting contributions from multiple sources so that the Linux kernel never forked, it just branched into many minor modifications.

* The GPL license allowed people like Reiser and IBM to donate their intellectual property without completely giving it away. If you used their IP in your modified kernel, they would have access to your additions. It's very easy to explain the GPL to managers as a "quid quo pro" deal -- I scratch your back if you scratch mine. Businesses do that all the time when they form alliances. The BSD license is the license of altruism and charity. Businesses most are okay with charity, but they usually do it for the recognition and team building aspect. It's much harder to give for altruistic reasons to BSD because the bean counters can make a convincing case that "if you're going to donate 10K worth of IP, you could do a lot more good and receive more marketting benefit if you keep the IP and donate that 10K to a high profile charity."

Reply Parent Score: 1