> "Can" result, perhaps, but there seems to be little real word data behind that claim.
There's a reason I use "can" instead of "does". Its very hard to quantify the effects of licensing since you can't easily isolate it from other contributing factors.
> As a counter example: The Linux kernel seems to be the most commercially backed OSS project of all. If what you say would be true, why would the major players not flock to the BSD:s instead?
That's a very good point. OTOH, while there are widely used GPL RDBMS, which ones have the non-first-party commercial backing of SQLite or Postgres?
> What you say about the GPL is only true for projects where copyright is assigned away from the contributor.
From the point of view of a downstream developer, its more of a concern with assignment, true. In any case, its not a positive benefit for users.
There's a reason I use "can" instead of "does". Its very hard to quantify the effects of licensing since you can't easily isolate it from other contributing factors.
> As a counter example: The Linux kernel seems to be the most commercially backed OSS project of all. If what you say would be true, why would the major players not flock to the BSD:s instead?
That's a very good point. OTOH, while there are widely used GPL RDBMS, which ones have the non-first-party commercial backing of SQLite or Postgres?
> What you say about the GPL is only true for projects where copyright is assigned away from the contributor.
From the point of view of a downstream developer, its more of a concern with assignment, true. In any case, its not a positive benefit for users.