Presence of innovation also does not mean its academic. Academic = supported by academic instance such as university.
2) Earlier point invalidated. I am not an extremist either, but I see closed source as enemy, because it inserts a lot of blackboxes requiring one-sided trust. Trust is a weakness. That means, closed source is much lower quality from my perspective, but it is not so criminal that it should be prohibited.
3) GPL protection = freedom protection. BSD = no protection, only advertizement = value of something written on public wall. If someone dislikes 1st, but likes 2nd so much that he carries a migration, that one clearly does not want freedom protected. Single goal - they want to relicence it later, and thus invalidate BSD license anyway. Call Apple as I requested earlier on opinion about GPL. The answer will be "GPL is too limiting (... freedom to relicence, ie remove original license)". There are no other exceptions. This happened by BSD folks themselves, so BSD is favoring anti-free. With BSD license stripped, there is no BSD - only EULA. With GPL, there is GPL and hence its conditions (freedoms) further apply. Fact.
BSD goal was to support companies, but not *any companies*, rather closed source companies.
Because, otherway they would use GPL to actually stand behind their advertized freedoms.***
1) they dont
2) they cooperate A LOT with Apple
*** Single possible exception would be "We don't care enough to switch".
With recent migration from GPLv3 to BSD for everything, they have invalidated this point.
Simple short licenses are *the* source of trouble, because they are not detailed and can be bent the way one sees fit.
Ask any lawyer!
GPL license is detailed, lacks excessive complexity and had maintained general direction since its first version: "To advertize and to protect four freedoms".
Note 2: Copyleft does not prevent proprietary companies to use its code. Copyleft prevents them to lock that specific code up.
Note 3: 'Copycenter' hence is worthless
Note 4: In 2012, the 'copycenter' will not work due to patents. Copying anything as in "putting fire with more gasoline" does not work anymore, as gasoline becomes patented.
Note 5: Even in 1999 Berkley's 'copycenter' was inefficient and underpowered due to n1&2, with even its supporters fighting for a few copies in order to just lock them down.
You associated freedom with anarchy and continue to do so even after multiple corrections. This is your second lie.
Licenses are constructed in a way, to be understood completely and unambiguously. Your interpretations of "TO ME" or "TO EVERYONE" do not matter - this is your third lie. Even every sane country has constitution, first declarations of which protect freedom. And NOT anarchy.
Linus made a mistake by using "GPL2" instead of recommended "GPL2 or later" and is now unable to gather all approvals for all the contributions in order to replace that with "GPLv3" or later". GPL stayed inline with the policy, by patching an exploit that prevented to use the four freedoms, so its perfectly fine to accept "GPL2 or later", even copyright assignments would be excessive as they introduce much bigger exploit, allowing to relicense all the code under *any* license.
And invalidation is not valid, because every human research is emotional. Humans tend to *strive* for goals. I doubt robots do the research in Berkley. And if one simply wants to publish an invention, one does declarative publication under public domain. Why BSD license? My understanding is that BSD license allows copyright declaration, which is lucrative if one seeks a company to monetize the development and has his copyright mentioned everywhere. The further development is then taken into EULA and original project either aborted (pre 2000) or completely forbidden to use and develop (post 2000 due to patenting).
GNU goal was to create guaranteed freedom operating system. Even today, they pursue the goal with Hurd, as Linux has accepted blobs in kernel; just like all xBSD. Yes, ofc Linux can be built without blobs as well as xBSD, but the difference is that GNU does not accept *any* closed source components within operating system limits, protecting from worked the AT&T exploit. In userspace, one can run whatever he wants; in kernelspace currently, if Nvidia strips its binary driver, Linux is left without any full-featured graphics stack. There are no binding agreements between Linux Foundation and Nvidia to my knowledge and I am sure there *are* agreements between Microsoft and Nvidia for that matter, although very likely subject to NDA. The goal of GNU was to write an OS that can't be broken or taken back all of the sudden, and thus they are on the right track.
If you dislike the license - do not use it.
If you do not understand the license - read their FAQ and ask them questions.
They have kept their line since version 1.0 of the license, that is "guarantee of availability of the four freedoms". Incremented license revisions just added more details and patched the exploits, ie improved fitness of the license to match the goals. Nothing more.
Linus is a living person, so he may have own opinion on topic, which does not qualify to be true. For example, he gave Nvidia a finger for refusing to opensource their graphics blob (which is paared only with Nvidia cards) while stating he is not a gamer (ie user of this case).
Specifically, in the article:
GNU: updated license patched known exploit that prevented use of four freedoms. Stayed true to its vector.
Linus: called that "doesn't match what I think"(1), stated ".. is morally"(2), stated "I think..."(3), stated "it is okay to control people's hardware"(4), stated "religious fanatics"(5), stated "... and totalitarian states"(6).
(1)&(3) - invalid, because subjective opinion. Requires objectively formulated policy instead.
(2) - invalid word in scope of jurisdiction, this word belongs to religion and is subjective.
(4)&(6) - self-excluding and self-contradicting
(5) - applied to (2) makes Linus himself religious fanatic. Without application, does not belong to jurisdictional scope - laws are not prayers, lawyers are not religious fanatics.
What Linus do is to damage himself. GPL guarantees four freedoms and seeks basement in local laws, local laws may require censorship of content for children. GPLv3 will hence have no power, trying to allow children utilize four freedoms in order to watch 18+ movie. So, Linus should not worry about GPLv3 as his children will be safe and will not be able to sue him.
If someone appears or acts, this condition is broken as he will bring own agenda favouring something over another.
Anarchy is incompatible with any life form, but is good for raw base material.
Torvalds disagreement is because he is indirectly payed by TiVO, who earn money selling devices, that exploit GPL, invalidating granted freedoms.
GPL backfired patching the case, Torvalds sobed. Instead, he should have developed the way to sell the devices in question, without breaking user rights. He should have seen it and not cooperated with both the robbers and the police.