>I used to interpret these decisions as flattering, but they are in fact simply taking the code they need, with the license that allows them to do it. They woul

>I used to interpret these decisions as flattering, but they are in fact simply taking the code they need, with the license that allows them to do it. They would never take GPL code as freely because they would risk being locked in by its requirements. 1) Have you not considered that it was the intention of the developers of that code that it could be used in this way, without giving back? 2) Have you considered that the rest of the world benefits from the use of BSD code in Apple and Juniper products, even if they don't give any code back? Anyone who uses these products receives gets to use better code than what may have been written from scratch. 3) Apple and Juniper both give code back to FreeBSD 4) Even if they didn't, it does not hurt FreeBSD any to have companies use their code and not give anything back. 5) We're agreed that Microsoft, Apple, or Juniper would never have used GPL code in their kernels. So how exactly has the open source world lost out due to the existence of the BSD license?