Sounds like BSD is be coming a OSX wannabe.
Why should i like proprietary? Sure, I have nothing against developers or companies that create any software, and their income.
Its that only open code and open model create advantages and are immune to many deeper problems that surfaced with proprietary approach.
In fact,even for android I never purchase proprietary software and always go for open solution and then just paypal the money to the creator.
Because, if build my workflow on something that may be easily discontinued and then unrevivable thanks to exclusive ownership rights, it would be a complete money waste.
Not to mention insecurity. Its pretty objective. I donīt hate developers, I just vote with money. I can do it, right?
I was talking about cases when copyleft (GPL) code is being used by proprietary developers. It not only encourages them to make contributions, but indirectly forces them to do so.I don't know why you assume that a copyleft license somehow encourages proprietary developers to make contributions. It's still the sole discretion of the companies and developers to contribute to a copyleft project.
No, it's not a contradiction to my statement, because launchd is Apple project. If it was freebsd project and Apple would support it, it would be the way you have described. It sometimes happens, but very rarely.Further, I don't understand why you assume that a permissive license does not encourage these types of contributions either; this very thread and phoronix article serve as a contradiction to your statement (since launchd was written by Apple).
The answer is very simple: the license has effect on software that is used by users.Software licenses are software developer issues. Why so many software users care so much baffles me. The license does not change the user experience at all.
For libraries, BSD licensed software is better for developers since it does not add or change terms of the code linked against the library (that's obvious too). Copyleft is only good if you agree with those terms and plan to license your work under the same license. For end-user software, the license doesn't really matter (e.g. Linux, Firefox, FreeBSD, GIMP ... nobody but developers of these applications care about the license).
As the saying goes, you can have any colour as long as it's black.
Yeah, and that's a big if there. With first hand experience in proprietary development, copyleft is avoided entirely. You might be surprised to learn that permissive licensed software isn't much better with very few permissively licensed components used at all. In our case, those permissive component aren't extended (so no internal contributions to these components). In general, we have to reinvent the wheel all the time (very irritating).I was talking about cases when copyleft (GPL) code is being used by proprietary developers. It not only encourages them to make contributions, but indirectly forces them to do so.
Permissive software has a better chance to see action in interesting problems a corporation or government faces. Meanwhile copylefted software is largely ignored when confidentiality is important.
OK fair enough. Apple was nice enough to license it under a permissive license. OpenBSM would then as a better example of explicit contribution from Apple to FreeBSD where Apple kindly licensed OpenBSM under BSDL specifically for FreeBSD. FreeBSD developers probably still did all the integration work though.No, it's not a contradiction to my statement, because launchd is Apple project. If it was freebsd project and Apple would support it, it would be the way you have described. It sometimes happens, but very rarely.
But neither BSDL nor GPL have any noticeable user requirements. As these are the licenses of choice for the vast majority of FOSS, I still stand by my original statement: Software licenses are software developer issues ... at least for FOSS.
The answer is very simple: the license has effect on software that is used by users.