@gnupropaganda the truth is... open source software doesn't cover the concept of "ethics" on its model.
So, what Microsoft does is not necessary sabotage, I've always thought that licenses like MIT and BSD "betray" free software communities, delivering the work of communities to companies that do not need to return the final product, even worse , making the final software a spyware (like Google Chrome)
It's therefore a broader problem.
On the one hand, you want to share your work to the community without restrictions, which includes the type of license.
At the same time, the most important implementation of your work could potentially not be shared, since you gave them the freedom not to share the improvements of your original work to other people.
It's, the freedom to restrict other freedoms, don't you have a problem with that?
That's good, it's still a contradiction.
I don't really mind what restrictions people might put on modified versions of my code. I'd rather it be useful to everyone, including them, than only to people who like the particular license I've chosen.
They can only restrict their /modified/ version, not my version, so it's not like they're taking anything away. They're just not sharing like they could. IMO nobody's freedoms are being restricted here.
So no, I don't have a problem with that. (:
I understand what you mean, in my first post i said that permissive licenses "betray" the ethical nature of free software, i still think that this is true.
I think BSD simply tends to focus more on server than desktop.
I've actually been messing around with an OpenBSD VM a little bit, and it looks wonderful as a server OS. Not so great for desktop, of course, but it wasn't designed for that.