Quite a few licenses qualify as open source, according to those who define the term. In attacks on open source, such as the recent commentary by Microsoft's Craig Mundie, the headline and opening comments target open source in a general way. But one doesn't have to read far to see that the only open source license under attack is the GNU General Public License (GPL).
To add to this focus on the GNU GPL, there has been almost no response to Microsoft from within the BSD community. The main rebuttal to Microsoft--signed by Linus Torvalds, Richard Stallman, and many high-profile open sourcers--doesn't include any BSD developers.
In fairness, they weren't there because they weren't asked. And that wasn't because of politics or neglect, but rather expediency according to a letter written to BSD developers by Bruce Perens, main author of the joint letter. Still, BSD leaders have had plenty of opportunity to comment, and generally have stayed silent. Searches for the word "Mundie" on BSD sites reveal almost nothing, compared to the floods you find at Linux-specific news sites and even here on ZDNet.
The ambivalence of the BSD crowd to Microsoft's attacks is due, I think, to the fact that while they may be put off by the overall attack, they agree with Microsoft's complaints about the GPL. The fact that it is so difficult to build a business plan around GPL code--a key point of the Microsoft platform--is a point BSDers have been making for a long time. Yet, since this is being perceived as a "Microsoft versus open source" debate, BSD supporters are ironically being tarred with the same brush as the GPL many of them dislike.
This must especially irk some folks who believe the Linux camp is in desperation mode, since Apple and Microsoft, they say, are using BSD code and the GPLers are feeling left behind.
Indeed, the real debate is more accurately between Microsoft and the Free Software Foundation's concept of free software than against open source per se. Still, the public perception, which Microsoft is unwittingly encouraging, of equating the GPL with open source in general, isn't helping the BSD crowd. As if this confusion isn't hurting the BSD world enough, how about the April purchase of commercial developer BSDi by embedded systems specialist Wind River? While BSDi was attempting to provide across-the-board BSD-based alternatives to Linux, Wind River's intentions for BSD seem specifically targeted at the embedded market. This doesn't bode well for someone looking for commercial enterprise, clustering, or Itanium support for BSD from Wind River. And I don't see any other major vendor rushing in to pick up the slack.
This raises a question I've had for ages. Given the frequent assertions by fans that the BSD licensing model is more business-friendly, why are so many more open source vendors and support organizations choosing the GPL-based Linux path instead? Why are companies such as IBM and Oracle throwing their support behind Linux and practically ignoring BSD systems?
Furthermore, if the BSD offers so much more freedom for programmers, as is often claimed, why are most of the open source world's more recent major projects--including all major GUI desktops such as GNOME and KDE, and second-generation mail servers such as Postfix and Exim--being released under the GPL?
I've heard some interesting answers, many of which suggest that GPL advocates have simply out-hyped their BSD colleagues, but I suspect the answer is somewhat deeper than that. If there's a good reason that makes sense, I'd love to hear it.
Why have GPL-based projects attracted more vendors and developers than BSD? Tell Evan in the TalkBack below or in the ZDNetLinux Forum. Or write to Evan directly at evan@starnix.com.
