> > I just wouldn't want a BSD-style license on an entire operating system.

> That's because you're a narrow-minded geek. NEXT (and now Apple) did contribute code to the *BSD community. AFAIK
> NeXTStep, SunOS and MacOS X Server have not hurt the various free BSD flavours. They're still alive and kicking.

Thanks, you're pretty polite yourself. If I were narrow-minded, or for that matter, less cordial, I wouldn't reply to this. I am a geek, however, and for you to deny that label as well would be pretty silly by now... :)

> In a nutshell, I think FreeBSD/OpenBSD actually profit from their liberal license policy.

I never said that they didn't, but I'll be happy to argue it now. Boy, the quality of discussion always goes down when we talk about FreeBSD. Wow, we got a few measly patches so that someone else could port our operating system without contributing back the important changes. I would consider a good contribution from Apple, say, Carbon, or some windowing code, or something to help us in the UNIX "quest for the stupid user interface". But no, they take your code, and release it under a more restrictive license, without any of the higher-level tools, and say that they're 'Open Source' on one hand. On the other hand, they make the rest available for a stiff fee, as a proprietary, closed-source product that's mostly just BSD where all the new features are. And you say "I think [we] actually profit from [this]". How meek you've become.

I also specified that this was my opinion, as in "I ... wouldn't want [this]". You can't deny that. If you want it, then I pity you, but that is of course your choice.