The BSD argument (that I don’t necessarily agree with) is that a less permissive license would encourage companies to use a different solution or build their own. I suppose this at least guarantees them a few $1000 a year depending on apple employee donations.
And yet it is still a prevalent idea in FOSS that open sourcing without restrictions on corporate use will karma back to you positively somehow.
Non-corporate FOSS should be way more popular.
It’s not corporate FOSS that’s the problem here, it’s the BSD license. If BSD had a stronger license, Apple would be forced to give more back.
I agree it’s the BSD license. That’s what I mean. It’s a license that places no restriction on corporate use without contribution.
The BSD argument (that I don’t necessarily agree with) is that a less permissive license would encourage companies to use a different solution or build their own. I suppose this at least guarantees them a few $1000 a year depending on apple employee donations.
I mean, Linux is much less permissive to the Apple/Sony strategy of forking BSD and closing the source, and it’s way more popular in every industry