BSD was part of TCP/IP, virtual memory, file system, sockets, ARPANET... remember?
GNU/GPL was not part of a research project, hence no innovation, hence not academic.
2) No, GPL is not academic, as pointed earlied. BSD, on the other hand, was. Also, I'm not an extremist when it comes to open/closed source; I think open-source is valuable, and personaly I had learned a lot from it, but I don't see closed-source as an enemy, as is usually seen by the GNU/GPL camp.
3) I don't find GPL's protection mechanism as freedom, nor BSD's abscense of them as anti-free.
"The way it was characterized politically, you had copyright, which is what the big companies use to lock everything up; you had copyleft, which is free software's way of making sure they can't lock it up; and then Berkeley had what we called ‘copycenter’, which is ‘take it down to the copy center and make as many copies as you want.’"
—Kirk McKusick, BSDCon 1999
I don't depend on "GPL people" so I would give a fuck if they give a fuck.
http://oreilly.com/catalog/opensourc...k/kirkmck.html and tell me that the BSD folks weren't fighting for freedom if you dare.
So, do you think that you, FSF, GNU, GPL or Richard Stallman really have the last word in this? You should stop thinking of yourselves as owners of the truth.
I think the term 'freedom' is one of the most controversial used throughout history, and neither of us are in the position to say what it is and what it isn't. The most we can do is say what represents closer our ideal of freedom
Also, notice that not everyone agrees with Stallman and the GNU/GPL project; it is not a BSD-exclusive thing. For example, look at the way Linus Torvalds thinks: https://lkml.org/lkml/2006/9/25/161
Torvalds is very critic with this whole issue: he likes GPL2, but does not agree with FSF, Stallman, GNU/GPL in all they say.