It would be neat if GPL advocates only complained about proprietary software, but some of them are hellbent against other open source software. They bash BSD-st

It would be neat if GPL advocates only complained about proprietary software, but some of them are hellbent against other open source software. They bash BSD-style licensing and treat anything not under what are regarded to be GPL compatible OSS licenses even worse. I have done a significant amount of work in OpenZFS and the hostility from certain GPL proponents has been ridiculous. Meanwhile, the way that Linux's kernel module interface interacts with the GPL means there is no problem for using ZFS with Linux since ports from other systems in the form of kernel modules are not derived works works. This has passed legal review by actual lawyers, one of which is a co-author of the GPLv3: https://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2016/linux-kernel-cddl.html https://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2016/linux-kernel-cddl... The view that the GPL is what enabled OSS to develop is also ridiculous. The original BSD license for example, predates the GPL. If anything, OSS developed in spite of the GPL, since controversies surrounding the GPL have been the single most counterproductive aspect of the OSS community. It is a wonder developers have any time to develop software given all of the headaches caused by GPL supremacists. If the GPL had never existed, the community would have avoided GPL supremacists and we would all be happily using BSD/Apache/Mozilla licensed software.