The BSD license means companies can use and not give back. In practice, that’s exactly what they do. Hardly any of the big corporates that use BSD have employees who give a damn about the free ecosystem (OpenBSD foundation, Wind River, etc etc. I’ve lived near offices for both of them and interviewed people who used to work there), and the BSD community has lately taken a hard on for getting angry at the Freedesktop guys because… There aren’t enough BSD contributors to keep Freedesktop’s BSD sections pristine.
I’ve spent years trying to understand the BSD ecosystem and community, and come to the solid conclusion that I’m not missing anything, it’s just an outdated project and philosophy.
100% agreed. Copyleft is a cancer. It grows and grows and it imposes restrictions.
But it’s a great cancer - because these restrictions prevent removal of freedom. These restrictions throttle greed and hurt those who don’t want to give back. GPL forces companies to help the little ones, and it’s one of the reasons why BSDs can’t catch up to Linux.
In theory, using BSD means companies give back. They don’t.
In practice, using GPL means companies must give back. They do.
There’s exceptions to both rules (i.e Onyx or Netflix) but those are undeniably the exception rather than the rule. This is supported by the progress made with copyleft licenses.
FreeBSD. I want to see how it grows, I think it will eventually be one of the most popular OS’s.
How?
The BSD license means companies can use and not give back. In practice, that’s exactly what they do. Hardly any of the big corporates that use BSD have employees who give a damn about the free ecosystem (OpenBSD foundation, Wind River, etc etc. I’ve lived near offices for both of them and interviewed people who used to work there), and the BSD community has lately taken a hard on for getting angry at the Freedesktop guys because… There aren’t enough BSD contributors to keep Freedesktop’s BSD sections pristine.
I’ve spent years trying to understand the BSD ecosystem and community, and come to the solid conclusion that I’m not missing anything, it’s just an outdated project and philosophy.
copyleft is a virus
100% agreed. Copyleft is a cancer. It grows and grows and it imposes restrictions.
But it’s a great cancer - because these restrictions prevent removal of freedom. These restrictions throttle greed and hurt those who don’t want to give back. GPL forces companies to help the little ones, and it’s one of the reasons why BSDs can’t catch up to Linux.
wrong, copyleft cannot be enforced
Theory vs Practice, BSD vs GPL.
In theory, using BSD means companies give back. They don’t.
In practice, using GPL means companies must give back. They do.
There’s exceptions to both rules (i.e Onyx or Netflix) but those are undeniably the exception rather than the rule. This is supported by the progress made with copyleft licenses.
capitalism is evil, copyleft just reinforces it
freebsd will die soon. openbsd will be the one to live
freedom is inherently unsustainable
IDK man. Debian, DOS, Windows, Suse, Red hat, and many more have been around for a long time.