No. Not really. Microsoft also included token ring networking and multiple others. Now however, most people would think you were a pothead if you mentioned token ring.
Before Microsoft adopted the MIT licensed BSD stack. There were small and large alternatives. Novel netware being a huge one on the corporate side. For both Mac and PC. When I went to school for network management, we learned netware.
AT&T had much much more influence on it’s adoption. By the 90s, if you were procuring network infrastructure, it was generally Ethernet and TCP IP. Microsoft supported it in lan manager and NT. It was also an option for Windows 3.11 and 95. But Microsoft didn’t even ship it as a base part of their home operating system until Windows 98. Even Apple beat them on that technicality.
There has arguably been much more commercial support proprietary and otherwise of GPL than MIT licensed software. Not even close. Sony, Apple and a ton of big companies use BSD or MIT licensed code. You could do pages and pages. A practical who’s who of the tech industry as to who has borrowed MIT code. The ones that contributed back wouldn’t hardly justify a footnote. Most GPL projects, especially the big ones, have pages listing many, many corporate sponsorships and supporters, not just the Linux kernel.
I never judged anyone for their license choice. Use the unlicense for all I care. But those sort of licenses as a rule don’t generate much actual support or contribution back.
No. Not really. Microsoft also included token ring networking and multiple others. Now however, most people would think you were a pothead if you mentioned token ring.
Before Microsoft adopted the MIT licensed BSD stack. There were small and large alternatives. Novel netware being a huge one on the corporate side. For both Mac and PC. When I went to school for network management, we learned netware.
AT&T had much much more influence on it’s adoption. By the 90s, if you were procuring network infrastructure, it was generally Ethernet and TCP IP. Microsoft supported it in lan manager and NT. It was also an option for Windows 3.11 and 95. But Microsoft didn’t even ship it as a base part of their home operating system until Windows 98. Even Apple beat them on that technicality.
There has arguably been much more commercial support proprietary and otherwise of GPL than MIT licensed software. Not even close. Sony, Apple and a ton of big companies use BSD or MIT licensed code. You could do pages and pages. A practical who’s who of the tech industry as to who has borrowed MIT code. The ones that contributed back wouldn’t hardly justify a footnote. Most GPL projects, especially the big ones, have pages listing many, many corporate sponsorships and supporters, not just the Linux kernel.
I never judged anyone for their license choice. Use the unlicense for all I care. But those sort of licenses as a rule don’t generate much actual support or contribution back.