>If it weren't for RMS and the invention of GPL-like licenses, I seriously doubt we would have a healthy open-source ecosystem.
No one can tell what would of happened if this was the case. And expressing your personal opinion doesn't change that.
>The problem with BSD is that it creates (or at least doesn't remove) an incentive to take whatever you can and run with it that has proven irresistible for companies.
And what is wrong with that? Developers know what they're getting into when they license their software under the BSD/MIT licenses. It's better that companies take high quality BSD/MIT licensed code instead of reinventing the wheel by creating their own crappy implementation. I don't even recall any successful high profile proprietary fork of popular BSD/MIT licensed software.
I agree with you on everything else, but there are tons of spectacularly successful forks of BSD-licensed software -- NetApp, Cisco, Juniper, and most of their competitors have proprietary operating systems that are forked from FreeBSD.
Thanks for the info. The only successful software that I could think of was the XNU kernel (Mac OS X) but it is not a fork even though it borrows heavily from FreeBSD for POSIX compatibility.
> No one can tell what would of happened if this was the case
You can look at the market and see if you could form a Red Hat around BSD. Call me back when you get funded.
> Developers know what they're getting into
And that's precisely why stuff like BtrFS is not BSD-licensed. Because the following week, Microsoft would launch their new and improved next-generation NTFS. There may be no successful BSD-branded ("ClosedBSD"? "ArrestedBSD"?) fork (BTW, is JUNOS open? I couldn't download the source) but certainly many pieces of BSD software end up inside proprietary software, and nobody knows exactly how those wheels were modified.
>You can look at the market and see if you could form a Red Hat around BSD.
I don't really see how monetizing from BSD/MIT source code would be different than monetizing from GPL code.
>Call me back when you get funded.
I am sure Apple, Microsoft and Adobe make more money than Red Hat . So again what is your point? Not everything in this life is about money.
>And that's precisely why stuff like BtrFS is not BSD-licensed.
And that's precisely why FreeBSD folk have ZFS and Linux folk don't.
>Because the following week, Microsoft would launch their new and improved next-generation NTFS.
ZFS porting from OpenSolaris to FreeBSD hasn't been easy. What makes you think that porting another modern and complex file system from Linux to Windows would be easy for Microsoft? And anyways it would be awesome that we could get native read/write on Windows partitions from Linux.
>many pieces of BSD software end up inside proprietary software, and nobody knows exactly how those wheels were modified.
Good, how much have Apple contributed back to FreeBSD? Apple also forked the LGPL licensed KHTML to form WebKit.
Does Apple have a real model that benefits open source/free software compared to the much smaller Red Hat? The only companies that I knew that contributed the same amount to open source/free software as Red Hat were Sun and Google.
But I must be just, Apple has released some open source code (GCD comes to mind) and as far as I'm informed funded some open source software (LLVM for example).
No one can tell what would of happened if this was the case. And expressing your personal opinion doesn't change that.
>The problem with BSD is that it creates (or at least doesn't remove) an incentive to take whatever you can and run with it that has proven irresistible for companies.
And what is wrong with that? Developers know what they're getting into when they license their software under the BSD/MIT licenses. It's better that companies take high quality BSD/MIT licensed code instead of reinventing the wheel by creating their own crappy implementation. I don't even recall any successful high profile proprietary fork of popular BSD/MIT licensed software.