Originally Posted by Del_
"You rattle your sword, I'll rattle mine" and nothing changes.
The OpenWRT Project, on whose work Sveasoft's product is based, has had enough. So, in March, the project notified Sveasoft that its OpenWRT license was terminated due to GPL violations. From OpenWRT's point of view, Sveasoft no longer has any rights to be distributing OpenWRT's work in any form. Sveasoft responds that it remains in compliance with the GPL, and that OpenWRT has improperly incorporated Sveasoft code which was never meant to be licensed under the GPL - a charge that OpenWRT developers deny.
I don't know how else you could spin it. KHTML was going nowhere fast on it's own. It wasn't until Apple forked and continuously developed WebKit did it start getting some traction with it's fork being under a BSD license.
I see you are taking the webkit story as a victory for permissive licensing. An interesting spin.
I would say it was Linus realizing that the cost/gain out ways idealism that would be hard to enforce and police. Linus is more about the code then the politics.
Indeed that is a problem. Mostly due to Linus being too pragmatic I would say.
Yes I do believe that it would still come along, perhaps even more support. While it is true that linux supports more hardware by the sheer amount of legacy code out there I would not say that it is the OS that has enjoyed the most support. That title would still go to Windows. The difference being is that Windows and the manufacturers of products for windows realize there comes a point of diminishing returns. Sure it is cool that I could in theory still have a Gravis Ultrasound rocking in linux today if they even sold a motherboard with ISA slots but it isn't to practical in any means. While the theory of keep stacking on support with a sounds nice, I tend to be one that would actually favor a heavy pruning of the kernel to get rid of a lot of that stuff that is virtually no longer used. I sometimes look at the kernel and think it should be on an episode of "Hoarders".
Sure, but less tons than on any other OS. Do you really believe we would be where we are today on drivers without copy-left?
First of all, you have to find out and prove that it has been violated. As I mentioned above, it is really easy to hide stolen code. Then if you do somehow find out about it what happens if it is against a corporate ninja team? Do you have the financial resources to take on such a fight? The FSF won't help you unless you have some pretty damning proof and not just a suspicion
If I was a copyright holder of violated code, I do believe I would enforce it. There will always be people braking the law, that doesn't mean that the law has no effect, or is not enforceable. You never came across me as the black and white kind of person before. Every day people steal and abuse without getting caught.
The latest linux Intel benchmarks that have been coming out for a while actually show their Windows/Linux drivers for the most part are on par with each other. Windows win some here and Linux wins some there (and to tell you the truth the intel linux driver seems to be more stable their their Win 8 driver save for one really annoying black dot bug on IB). While it is true that I won't be doing any 7680x1440 gaming on an intel IGP anytime soon like I do on the Titans, it does work fine for more common resolutions for gaming in linux for all but the most demanding titles (I'm looking at you Metro).
No, their drivers on Windows have been superior. Their efforts are marginally better than AMD, but still not all in. In any case, we are talking gaming here. Intel was never an option for gaming, they still have some way to go there.
That's fine if you think that, I think otherwise from my experiences in the past. We can all speculate and cite examples both for and against what could have happened but ultimately nobody can prove anything (unless you are JJ Abrams and do a Star Trek reboot). I would attribute much of Linux's success at being able to fill the right niche at the right time in computing more then it's license and development pushed forward because it had a smart man heading up the project who ultimately still calls the shots on its direction. BSD's biggest issue is that it has had in the past poor leadership and a very narrow focused goal market. That has ultimately hurt it meanwhile Linus got the ball rolling and went for a shotgun one kernel to rule them all approach in linux's development which has been able to maintain it's momentum.
I have nothing against permissive licensing, it has it's place. However, I have severe problems if people deny the victories copy-left gave us as if it would all have happened without copy-left. If any, I think the BSDs would be all but dead by now without GNU/Linux. There may be one point in the future where we do not need copy-left anymore, but I don't think we are there yet.