As much as I like FreeBSD, and as much as I prefer the BSD license to the GPL, everytime I think about it, I reach the same conclusion: the BSD License is flawed.
Because of the GPL, Linux has companies like Red Hat committing 25% of the new code base. Companies have to improve the product, and Linux can evolve without direct funding.
The BSD license allows Apple and others to shamelessly rip code out of the product and put very little in, thus relying on a small community of developers and donations to keep running. It's a shame really, since FreeBSD is such a better product with so much potential. And all we can really do is support it through programs like this.
Nearly all the code to the base system is available under the non-BSD APSL, but the fact is that most of it just isn't useful to the BSDs, and if it were, Apple would likely be open to contributing the code under an alternative license (eg, they re-licensed launchd under the Apache license):
Because of the GPL, Linux has companies like Red Hat committing 25% of the new code base. Companies have to improve the product, and Linux can evolve without direct funding.
There's two routes for money to take:
1. People donate money to the FreeBSD Foundation, which then funds FreeBSD development.
2. People pay for RHEL, and then RedHat uses that money to fund Linux development.
Is there really any significant difference between these?
Colin's statement was in the context of the question of BSD vs. GPL licensing.
RedHat's model it's clearly more effective than simple charity, but I don't see a difference between RedHat and any other OSS-reliant contributing vendor. As an example, Juniper funds FreeBSD development based on sales/support of their high-end networking products, and contributed the MIPS port included in FreeBSD 8:
The main difference is that these companies make their money by incorporating FreeBSD into their products, are not required to provide all the source to their products, and thus can contribute back improvements as they see fit.
Because of the GPL, Linux has companies like Red Hat committing 25% of the new code base. Companies have to improve the product, and Linux can evolve without direct funding.
The BSD license allows Apple and others to shamelessly rip code out of the product and put very little in, thus relying on a small community of developers and donations to keep running. It's a shame really, since FreeBSD is such a better product with so much potential. And all we can really do is support it through programs like this.