[maybe this is of interest to someone, maybe it's just the 2001st
  GPL-vs-BSD thing. YMMV!]


I was asked on how to convince some decision makers at a (mostly) hardware 
company to 1) use BSD-code instead of GPL-code for the start (i.e. use 
NetBSD over Linux) and 2) make them release the code to the public after 
making changes. Here are my thoughts:

  * A general consequence when putting code under the BSD license or
    releasing new code based on existing BSD-licensed code is
    that the code can be kept closed. E.g. when shipping hardware, there is
    no need to add the source.

  * In contrast, when you put new code under the GPL, or write code
    based on a program released under the GPL, it is mandatory that you
    release the full source of all your changes. Many big companies have
    been bitten by this with Linux, see http://www.gpl-violations.org/ to
    find that prominent companies like Siemens, ASUS, Sitecom, Gigabyte and
    many others are affected of this (aparently?) difficult to follow
    requirement of the GPL.

  * When using BSD-licensed code as a base, it's your own choice if you
    want to keep your changes private, of if you want to contribute them
    back to the community. Contributing the source has both benefits and
    drawbacks, which have to be considered.

  * Drawbacks of opening the source are that competitors will have access
    to your intellectual property. When using BSD-licensed code as a base
    for your work, you can choose to keep your changes. With GPL, you
    have to open them up, if you want or not.

  * Benefits of releasing source to the bright public may have various
    benefits usually found when arguing for Open Source: people can use the
    code and base their works on it, the code can be audited by 3rd parties
    for e.g. security reasons, etc.

  * A particular benefit of releasing a work based on BSD-licensed code
    again not (only) to the bright public but especially to the original
    project is that the contributions can be incorporated into the project,
    and get maintained by the project people.

  * One of the goals of the NetBSD project is to offer a complete operating
    system kernel available under the BSD license only. To integrate code
    into NetBSD, and the kernel in particular, it has to be BSD licensed.
    Integration into NetBSD (which of course requires releasing
    the source) will lead to benefits from the efforts of the NetBSD
    project, its community as well as the vendors supporting it.


If you want to point at various other vendors who have choosen NetBSD to place 
their products on, see:

  * Hardware designed for and with NetBSD:
    http://www.netbsd.org/gallery/products.html

  * Products based on NetBSD:
    http://www.netbsd.org/gallery/hardware.html

  * NetBSD-ready PowerPC toys: KuroBox and LinkStation:
    http://www.feyrer.de/NetBSD/blog.html#20050114

  * SGI produces NetBSD-based WebCam (Update):
    http://www.feyrer.de/NetBSD/blog.html#20050112

  * Embedded NetBSD on Technologic Systems' ARM boards:
    http://www.feyrer.de/NetBSD/blog.html#20050108

  * IBM built some NetBSD 1.3x based Network Computers (NSM V2R1):

    http://www-1.ibm.com/servlet/support/manager?rt=0&rs=0&org=as400&doc=42A981CC86BE333986256850006A7ECA
    http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/pubs/pdfs/redbooks/sg245844.pdf
 	(pages 372, 594, 629, 691)

  * Parts of Apple's MacOS X / Darwin are based on NetBSD


  - Hubert

-- 
NetBSD - Free AND Open!      (And of course secure, portable, yadda yadda)