The academic origins of whom? Both GPL and BSD are academic. Because RMS is MIT and BSD is Berkley.
The differences - three differences:
1) RMS' GNU is rewritten from scratch, where BSD is copypaste - for which they got sued by AT&T.
2) GPL is no less academic than BSD; but within GPL its impossible to develop something in open and then close it down leaving everyone behind (linking to proprietary is and was ok). That, unless two existing license exploits are present:
- GPL is not the only license or
- copyright assignment is required.
3) freedom protection aspect of GPL, which is completely absent in BSD - so BSD is Public Domain. You can go argue its not, but without protection of conditions (like in GPL) its clauses possess the legitimate power of a void.
GPL is both for production and for study.
BSD is only for study, because it does not protect anything - its an advertizing license. Publishing any commercial content under advertizing license means making public domain. Nobody does that, except they have patent portfolio to cover it, or/and its about an interface to something bigger and they target large userbase by making the interface widely compatible.
For production for BSD, the license is EULA. EULA is extremely restricting, not much "freedom" left.
If I am to choose between freedom license that only restricts removing that freedom, and freedom license that does not protect anything it claims and I end up with EULA in result, I choose GPL for freedom license.
Because BSD freedoms do not work since nobody cares about them, its anarchy.
On the hate point,Someone says, the power is within the difference. But then, look:
1) Apple bans GPL
2) MS bans GPL
3) BSD starts replacing everything GNU with BSD, because.. GPLv3 is limits their freedom to remove freedom. <- this, nothing else.
4) BSD chooses Apple as its partner
5) BSD trolls start posting FUD about how BSD is free and GPL is viral.
Do not be surprised, if you loose GPL folks and will be dependent upon your new proprietary friends which hate freedom.
Not only you lie about freedom, you troll GPL and support the force behind anti-freedom proactively.
Do not wonder if GPL people will give a fuck about you.
GPL started because proprietary endangered the whole existence of UNIX and is sole purpose is to remove proprietary influence over the code it protects. Influence, not proprietary itself.
Proprietary is free to link runtime to GPL at any level and hence cooperate on binary level.
You can see that GNU/GPL is not anti-proprietary movement.
Proprietary-agnostic = freedom-agnostic. BSD does not actually care about anything, it just advertizes 1)authorship 2)absence of warranty/responsibility
Its kind of putting fire out with gasoline.
The only one who fights freedom is the one who preserves it by limiting the single right remove freedom. That's RMS and co.
For example, even if technology establishes under BSD license, no one can prevent major publisher from adding patented, closed source extensions to it and thus invalidating the BSD-licensed technology altogether in one move.
A lot of serious flaws unpatched to consider this anything close to freedom, by the reactions of BSD folks upon GPLv3, those are not bugs, but features.
Anarchy is not freedom - its void. An absence of any policy. This state is never possible, it is similar to null pointer.
Single entity within anarchy immediately postulates totalitarian monarchy(no anarchy). Two+ entities postulate either war (duocratie); or any agreement(which is not anarchy - because they postulate limits).
For anarchy to maintain, there should be zero entities or entities completely not acting in any way, because freedom to commit action of one entity will unavoidably cancel freedom of another entity.
That's not opinion, its not preference, that are facts.
My preference is GPL when it comes to freedom or proprietary when it comes to keeping secrets; everything in-between is not stable enough.
What secrets can you trust, is different matter as trust is a weakness.