gpl has been chosen totally on own decision for new projects. they could have been going bsd license or anything else.
but i agree that talking about "is better and proven" on that matter is quite useless.
though, i do not like bsd-like licenses. they are and will be the fall of all free software. they are the license allowing to take and to not give back anything.
but being "better" is a matter of point of view and nothing proveable.
First, research the case of Gary Kildall, perhaps on youtube. Better if you read interview directly from his daughter, because IBM and Microsucks will BS you.
Second, read about MS agreements with OEM hardware vendors.
Third, read about MS requirements with OEM sellers (either sell MS-only preinstalled and have discount from ms, or pay full price for windows copy).
Fourth, the famous "Linux=cancer", and walmart BSing.
Fifth, read letters about "Embrace, extend, extinguish" directly from MS, essentially how they wanted to destroy Java, but failed. So they reinvented .Net and MONO - its herald-infiltrator for non-ms platforms.
MS is not choosen due to software dependencies. Its choosen, because its force-preinstalled since first MS-DOS, which in turn was a clone of CP/M, original developer of which was silenced by NDA, Bullsh'd and killed once he decided to talk despite NDA.
And once they got the monopoly market position by criminal activity, they used other criminal methods to form a dependency knot.
Which is now falling apart, because and only due to Google. Even destroying Nokia didn't help them, and they stop at nothing for ability to tax the world for their stupid useless blob.
Last edited by brosis; 03-10-2013 at 10:08 AM.
And - as we know - GPL has different versions; just think of the recent problems (incompatibilities!) with GPLv2 vs GPLv3. So no freedom: if you want to make software that actually can get used by other projects you need to go GPLv3.
If they chose BSD license it's their problem. If they see that many proprietary projects use their libs but don't give back, they are free to relicense their software. Keep in mind: if the software is good also open source projects will use it - and they are known to give back, aren't they?though, i do not like bsd-like licenses. they are and will be the fall of all free software. they are the license allowing to take and to not give back anything.
Isn't that funny: First, the GNU and Linux community start to push everything INTO GPLv3 and further and now several projects are pushing towards a BSD-/MIT-style licensing model used by the *BSD UNIX community now for a long time? It sound a bit like a paradoxon - or anachronism. The Kindergarten seems to get mature and now many people realize, that it isn't a good idea to push EVERYTHING they want to earn money with out into the public. It is always the healthy balance which makes the essence of life.
2.b) "You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License."
This is same as software dependencies.