Change my mind.
Companies are just taking BSD code and don’t contribute to it. At the end they’re selecting Linux even if there’s licensing risk and they have contribute to code. Why? Because Linux have a lot of contributors, that makes it much more advanced system with more features. Also companies which want to support Linux don’t have to worry that someone would close their code or code they funded with money. It’s not about competition but collaboration. GPL license allowed us also to sell own open-source solutions.
FreeBSD, OpenBSD and NetBSD are behind Linux. I love that systems (especially OpenBSD), but I don’t see a point in contributing or donating to them. Instead of being ready to use solutions they’re trying to be base for commercial closed-source products and it would be great as contributors could get something from that, but they get nothing.
I understand that BSD see closed source as something cool and way to commercialize software, but in today times where a lot of devices have 24/7 access to internet, microphones, cameras and at the same time to sensitive data it’s extremely dangerous. Closed source is used to hide backdoors, acts of surveillance and keeping monopoly on market which obviously stop evolution of software.
Please tell me how BSD license can be good solution for operating system. It’s not about offending BSD, but as someone who love open source software I hate closed source software I would like to know how I can defend this license.
There isn’t a lot of evidence of this.
This is at odds with the first statement. Companies also aren’t contributing as much code as they should.
Yeah, inertia is a thing. It’s why Windows is so dominant. The BSDs were rather competitive with Linux back in the early ‘90s - ‘00s.
This might have been a reason in the ‘90s IBM picked Linux as the Unix successor, but now it’s about inertia and a baseless OS is pretty handy.
It was also never about collaboration. It was always MAD doctrine. Each company had a pack of lawyers ready. The GPL isn’t the most battle tested.
This isn’t the flex you think it is.
The BSDs are full operating systems. Batteries are included in the repo.
Linux requires adding lots of other software to make the kernel useful. When people say “It’s GNU/Linux”, this is what they mean. The Linux kernel + the GNU tools make an OS.
They are not. They are existing as their own projects. ☺️
Most FOSS devs get nothing. 🤣 GPL, BSD, Apache… It doesn’t matter. The capitalists plunder the commons making money off of other’s hard work.
They really don’t. They just want to work on their projects in peace.
Ummm…. That’s not BSD specific. FOSS software gets used for this as well. All those surveillance devices are probably running some sort of Linux.
There are binary firmware blobs and all sorts of stuff. The Linux kernel is GPLv2 specifically to allow this.
The DMCA’s anti-encryption circumvention is used to chill software evolution and lock up code more than anything. BSDs only ask that people don’t GPL their stuff.
Companies play all sorts of games with code, and there isn’t a guarantee that what is in the repo is what people are running. We need reproducible builds to know the software is clean, and without that, software is not trustworthy.
This is bigger than the license on the code. This is about processes and culture.