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.

  • LeFantome@programming.dev
    21·
    2 hours ago

    You are wrong. I doubt I will change your mind.

    1. There are many, many, many more companies using Linux without giving back than there are for BSD. And not just “using it” either. Practically the entire embedded universe is one giant GPL violation.

    2. Linux is not “true” GPL anyway, so it is a poor example for how the GPL impacts success.

    3. The companies that build businesses on FreeBSD tend to give back. There are many examples, the biggest being Netflix.

    4. The classic example of a company not giving back is Sony and even that is wrong.

    5. People choosing a BSD license value different things, rendering your entire premise meaningless for them and your framing of “the problem” inappropriate.

    I do not want to get too deep into Sony. But let’s acknowledge that they first tried to ship Linux on PlayStation. They had to stop. Why? Well, it was not because people tried to copy the operating system. It was because people used it to circumvent other protections to copy proprietary games. The problem was not with Sony’s ethics but with those of “the community” and the lack of respect “the community” had for the concept of copyright.

    So, Sony switched to a FreeBSD base and they no longer share that code. True.

    However, Sony does contribute to BSD. And Sony is a significant contributor to Clang/LLVM and they do share their work freely (even though the license does not require them to). The FreeBSD project benefits from this as Clang is the system compiler. I benefit from this as my Linux distro also uses Clang as the system compiler.

    The BSD license is “free software” and provides all “4 freedoms” touted by the FSF. It protects your rights with regards to the code you have and are using. It does not give you guaranteed access to FUTURE code that you do not write. Those future contributors are free to choose their license. You know…freedom.

    BSD lags in features, particularly hardware support, because it has fewer users and therefore fewer developers. That is mostly an accident of history and not, in my view, due in any way to the license. Look up the BSD lawsuit that was happening when Linux appeared. If your argument for the popularity of Linux is the GPL, why did Xorg become the dominant window system instead of something GPL based? Why did Rust, Swift, and Zig appear on LLVM instead of GCC?

    Anyway, I could write 100 paragraphs and not change your mind. You certainly have not changed mine.