In last week's column, I asked why BSD-licensed operating systems didn't seem to be attracting as many corporate supporters and programmers as the GNU GPL-based Linux. Why does it appear that so many of the new and most actively developed open-source projects these days are being done under the GNU license, rather than the BSD one which proponents say is more business-friendly?

I found answers in many places: ZDNet Talkbacks attached to the column, private e-mail, as well as BSD and Linux discussion areas. It seems that what motivates an open source programmer to choose one approach over another may have more to do with fear and mistrust than with freedom.

By far the majority of replies and comments came from people who preferred the GPL. These people explained that developers consider the GPL to be in their interest, even though the GPL forces them (and subsequent developers) to publish any updates or modifications. But there were certainly many people offering the BSD point of view, maintaining that their approach was indeed better for businesses, pointing out how companies such as Apple and Microsoft benefited their users by incorporating BSD-licensed code.

Then there was the handful of BSD supporters who seemed indignant that I'd even asked the question. I wonder what were they scared of.

As I read the responses, a different, far more widespread fear emerged: most programmers did not want the work they released to be used in a manner they did not support. The BSD philosophy seems to hold that creating and giving away code, then seeing it used by others, is victory and reward enough. But most of the GPL supporters disapproved of allowing “others” to close off source code and hide enhancements.

Likewise, IBM, SGI, and other companies don't want to contribute source code to the community if competitors can use it against them. While using the GPL won't prevent competitors from using the code, it does keep them from making proprietary extensions. This appears to be the strongest case in favor of corporate support of Linux and the GPL. And while some big companies such as Microsoft and Apple use BSD-based code, few of them encourage its use by others.

(It's interesting to note that Apple, while having no problem using BSD-based code made by others, releases its own open source stuff under a license that's more restrictive than the GPL.)

The BSD philosophy of sharing code was born in the days of a friendlier computing landscape, when people freely shared code and computer access. Before the Internet they used the UUCP protocol to exchange e-mail and news. When the Internet came along, no one minded insecure telnet and FTP, because back then, it was a kinder and gentler — and of course much smaller — Internet.

Today the computing world has become nastier and more predatory. Kerberos (BSD code to which Microsoft made proprietary modifications in order to warp a standard protocol) and the X Window System (which was almost made proprietary by The Open Group) were two examples which planted fear in programmers about dangers in the BSD approach. It is this fear, I believe, far more than GPL creator Richard Stallman's appeals to freedom, that has primarily driven the popularity of the GPL.

Just because someone uses the GPL doesn't mean they buy into the dogma of Stallman and his Free Software Foundation. Not everyone using or creating GPL code believes in the necessity of ending all use and development of proprietary software. Many appear to use the GPL simply as a way to balance the playing field for certain core elements of computer software. (Of course, opinions vary wildly on what constitutes the “core,” but that's a different story.)

The GPL has gotten a job, taken the car keys, and left home; it's not under its father's control anymore (if it ever was). Companies are finding that by using both GPL and commercial applications, they can have the best of both worlds and develop sustainable business models. The BSD approach works best in some scenarios — such as for reference implementations of standards aimed at maximum deployment. For instance, having a BSD-licensed implementation of the Ogg Vorbis audio format will likely boost its widespread adoption far better than a GPL-licensed implementation could, because developers can freely embed such code in existing (proprietary) software.

But for most other uses, either GPL or full proprietary is preferred in the not-so-kind computing environment of today.

How can the BSD license build momentum in today's computing environment? Tell Evan in the Talkback below or in the ZDNet Linux Forum. Or write to Evan directly at [email protected].