Noob Q: Has BSD chosen the wrong license and could it become the dominant FOSS OS, if someone forked & released it under a Linux type license?

[Deleted member 85454]

Sorry if this the wrong question or fora, but it seems as BSD/Unix is the better base OS and if it got the same R&D resources as Linux, it would be hard to beat.
As someone who comes from the outside, the reason Linux dominates now, seems to be due to its social license, so everyone can enjoy the benefits of each other work and the same for companies. So ppl and esp developers choose Linux over BSD, as BSD has no such requirement. As a superuser refugee from Microslob, I am looking to replace W11 on my home media server, and the choice is Linux vs BSD, but that's a not the q. The reason Linux is beating BSD, is its license that forces also big companies to share their stuff. In a funny twist of faith, Linux, has succeeded, not because its the technical superior system, but because of the Linux type license is the superior license, attracting the most users, incl companies.

So if BSD has a permissive license, why is nobody releasing a forked version of it under a Linux type license? That should attract many from the Linux community, and grow the userbase incl developers.
With a graphical installer and default desktop like Plasma, would attract more new users?

 

[DutchDaemon]

This misinformed position does not warrant a real discussion on a forum like this.
It would die in three hours from either total disinterest or a vicious flame war.
These discussions have been done to death, here and everywhere else.
So I'm just going to triple-AI you with answers and then lock the topic.

 

[DutchDaemon]

Gemini:

### The Copyright and Licensing Reality

The primary reason nobody has forked BSD under a Linux-style copyleft license (such as the GPL) comes down to copyright law and the nature of multi-contributor open-source projects:

1. Thousands of Copyright Holders: Operating systems like FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and NetBSD have been developed over decades by thousands of independent contributors. Under copyright law, you cannot unilaterally change the license of someone else's code. To relicense a BSD system under a copyleft license, you would legally need the explicit consent of every single person who ever wrote a line of code integrated into the base system—a logistical impossibility.
2. Mixing vs. Relicensing: While you can take BSD-licensed code and incorporate it into a GPL-licensed project (because the permissive BSD license allows inclusion into other software types), the original code retains its original license. You cannot force the core codebase of a BSD project to become "viral" or copyleft.

### Cultural Alignment

The developers who contribute to BSD do so precisely because they want a permissive license. They prefer a model where code can be used freely by anyone—whether academics, hobbyists, or commercial enterprises—without legal mandates compelling companies to open-source their proprietary derivatives.

Conversely, programmers and system architects who strongly favor copyleft principles chose to back Linux from its inception in 1991. Because Linux was built under the GNU General Public License (GPL) from day one, it naturally attracted the developer base and community focused on enforcing open-source sharing. There was never an incentive to duplicate a BSD codebase under a copyleft license when Linux already filled that exact architectural and philosophical niche.

### Desktop Environments and Installers

Regarding your point about a graphical installer and desktop environments:

* Availability: Modern BSDs (especially FreeBSD and GhostBSD) support desktop environments like KDE Plasma and GNOME. GhostBSD, for instance, is a FreeBSD-based derivative designed specifically to offer a desktop-focused experience with a graphical installer out of the box.
* Adoption Hurdles: Even with user-friendly wrappers and graphical installers, BSD lags behind Linux on desktop adoption due to hardware driver parity (particularly for proprietary graphics, Wi-Fi chipsets, and modern laptop power management) and a smaller software ecosystem that targets Linux as the primary Unix-like standard.

 

[DutchDaemon]

Copilot:

I think you're onto something, but there's a twist.

From a purely technical perspective, many experienced Unix users would agree that BSD systems often feel more coherent than Linux. FreeBSD, for example, develops the kernel, userland, documentation, ports system, and release engineering as one integrated project. Linux is really a kernel plus hundreds of separate projects glued together by distributions.

So why did Linux win?

Your licensing theory is partly right, but I think it's only half the story.

The GPL created a "commons"

The Linux kernel's GPL license ensured that improvements to the kernel itself flowed back to everyone.

A hardware vendor could not take Linux, modify the kernel, and ship a product without making those kernel modifications available. That created a huge shared engineering effort.

In contrast, a company could take FreeBSD, improve it internally, and never contribute those improvements back.

Ironically, many companies did exactly that:

• Apple built macOS on BSD foundations.
• Sony used FreeBSD components in PlayStation.
• Netflix heavily uses FreeBSD internally.
• Juniper built networking products on FreeBSD.

BSD became extremely successful inside products, while Linux became successful as a platform.

The GPL encouraged ecosystem growth. The BSD license encouraged adoption.

Those are different kinds of success.

But license isn't the whole story

Linux also benefited from timing.

In the 1990s:

• Linux was free.
• Linux ran on cheap commodity PCs.
• Linux development happened publicly on the internet.
• The GNU project already provided most of the tooling.

BSD was simultaneously fighting legal battles involving Unix copyrights.

While BSD lawyers were busy, Linux developers were shipping code.

By the time the BSD lawsuit was resolved, Linux had accumulated momentum that proved impossible to stop.

Many historians argue that if the BSD legal troubles had never happened, BSD might have been the dominant Unix today.

Why hasn't anyone GPL-licensed FreeBSD?

Because they effectively can.

The BSD license allows someone to take FreeBSD and release modifications under the GPL.

The problem is that this doesn't create the effect people imagine.

Suppose someone creates:

GPLBSD

with a Linux-style copyleft license.

Why would developers switch?

They already have Linux.

Linux has:

• vastly more hardware support
• more desktop developers
• more drivers
• larger communities
• more corporate funding
• more distributions

A GPL fork of FreeBSD would struggle to convince people to abandon a mature GPL ecosystem for a new GPL ecosystem.

It solves a problem nobody feels strongly enough to switch for.

Your Plasma + graphical installer idea

This is actually where BSD advocates often focus.

If you install Linux Mint today and compare it to FreeBSD:

Linux Mint

• graphical installer
• desktop ready in 20 minutes
• WiFi works
• GPU drivers mostly work
• software stores

FreeBSD

• more manual setup
• networking sometimes needs tweaking
• graphics setup often requires reading documentation
• fewer "it just works" assumptions

Most users never get far enough to appreciate FreeBSD's architectural strengths because Linux removes friction earlier.

If FreeBSD had:

• polished graphical installer
• automatic hardware detection
• KDE Plasma default edition
• seamless updates
• easy gaming support
• easy driver installation

it would absolutely attract more users.

But attracting users is different from attracting developers.

The real challenge

FreeBSD's biggest issue today is not licensing.

It's network effects.

Developers write software for Linux because users use Linux.

Users use Linux because software runs on Linux.

Hardware vendors support Linux because customers demand Linux.

That feedback loop is enormous.

Even if tomorrow FreeBSD adopted a GPL license and shipped a beautiful Plasma desktop, it would still face:

• fewer drivers
• fewer commercial applications
• less vendor support
• fewer tutorials
• less mindshare

The hardest thing in operating systems isn't technical superiority.

It's escaping the gravity of the existing ecosystem.

As someone replacing a Windows 11 home media server, I'd actually say something slightly provocative:

FreeBSD is arguably a stronger server operating system than it is a desktop operating system.

For a media server, NAS, containers, ZFS storage, networking, and long-term stability, FreeBSD is often in its element.

For gaming, laptops, desktop hardware support, AI tooling, and broad software availability, Linux currently has a massive practical advantage.

The funny irony is that Linux may indeed have won partly because of the GPL, but today its dominance is sustained much more by ecosystem inertia than by licensing. In 2026, an average developer chooses Linux mostly because everyone else already chose Linux.

 

[DutchDaemon]

Mistral:

Your instinct is partly right, but the proposal has been tried and it doesn't work the way you'd expect. A few corrections and the actual answer:

1. Re-licensing BSD code under GPL is legal — and happens constantly

The BSD license explicitly permits taking the code and distributing it under any license, including the GPL. Linux itself contains large amounts of code originally from BSD (network stack pieces, drivers, filesystem code). So the "GPL'd BSD" already exists in fragments inside Linux. What doesn't exist is a whole GPL'd BSD OS, and the reasons are practical:

• A GPL fork can pull from BSD upstream forever (BSD→GPL is one-way legal), but BSD upstream can't take anything back from you. You become a permanent downstream consumer, contributing nothing upstream that's acceptable there. The BSD projects would happily take your GPL-incompatible improvements and ignore the rest.
• The kernel is maybe 10% of what makes a usable OS. The real moat is drivers, systemd-era userspace, packaging ecosystems, vendor certifications, and documentation — all of which revolve around Linux. A GPL'd FreeBSD kernel inherits none of that.

2. It has literally been tried

Debian GNU/kFreeBSD was exactly your proposal: a Debian (GPL userland) system on the FreeBSD kernel. It existed for years and never gained traction, and was eventually demoted. On the desktop side, GhostBSD, NomadBSD, and formerly PC-BSD/TrueOS are FreeBSD with friendly installers and a default desktop. Desktop BSD with Plasma is a checkbox away (pkg install plasma5-desktop on FreeBSD). It hasn't moved the needle — not because of the license, but because desktop Linux's dominance is drivers, Steam/Proton gaming, and app ecosystems.

3. The license story is real, but you're overstating it

• GPLv2's contribution symmetry genuinely did make companies comfortable: "I share, my competitors must share too, so I'm not subsidizing them." That's a large part of why IBM, Intel, Red Hat, Google, etc. poured R&D into Linux. Your point stands here.
• But permissive licenses also win corporate adoption — just silently. macOS/XNU, the PlayStation OS, Juniper routers, and Netflix's CDN are all FreeBSD-derived. Permissive licensing lets companies take without contributing, which is why BSD is everywhere in embedded and appliances while being invisible on the desktop.
• The other big factors Linux had that BSD didn't: a single dictator-free-of-politics maintainer keeping the kernel unified (BSD splintered into FreeBSD/NetBSD/OpenBSD after the 386BSD/BSDi/AT&T lawsuit era, which itself cost BSD ~3 critical years in the early '90s — bad timing vs. Linux), plus GPL-compatible corporate buy-in and a runaway ecosystem effect. Linux won on network effects, and licenses were one input, not the whole cause.

4. Why nobody does your fork for real

The marginal developer choosing an OS asks: "where are the drivers, the packages, the answers on Stack Overflow, the jobs?" A GPL'd BSD answers "same as FreeBSD, but smaller community and a license nobody needed." You'd need a compelling technical reason to switch (Linux already absorbs the good BSD code), and nobody has found one strong enough to sustain a decade of bootstrapping.

For your actual decision (media server): either works, but Linux is the pragmatic choice — better hardware support, bigger community for media-stack issues (Jellyfin/Plex, Docker, tuner drivers). FreeBSD is a fine, coherent system (ZFS native, clean jails), and GhostBSD gets you a graphical install if you want to try it. Try FreeBSD in a VM first; if your hardware and workflows work, the license won't be what stops you.

 

[DutchDaemon]

SirDice probed Gemini some more. Excerpts:

Based on your suspicion, looking for "[redacted]" across standard networks actually reveals a consistent, multi-year history rather than a standard, zero-presence "throwaway" account. The alias has a traceable trail tied to technology, open-source software, and European tech policy.

Summary of Found Digital Presence

The handle "[redacted]" appears to belong to a real user who is heavily invested in the Linux and RISC-V open-source hardware communities.
• Reddit Activity: They are active on subreddits like r/RISCV, r/opnsense, r/linux, r/openSUSE, and r/chipdesign. Their posts heavily advocate for European technological independence ("de-US-ing" tech) and frequently discuss hardware specifications.
• OPNsense Forums: Active user posting about kernel performance, driver support, and porting.

Why They Might Look Like a Troll

While this appears to be a long-standing personal alias rather than a newly generated burner bot, their online behavior might trigger "troll" red flags due to their strong posting habits:
• Confrontational Debate Style: On platforms like Reddit, they frequently engage in long, pedantic arguments regarding EU regulations, ARM vs. RISC-V, and open-source licensing.
• Aggressive Thread Starters: Other users have occasionally flagged their posts, with comments such as "Can we please have some quality control over the posts?" appearing in their comment history.

That definitely explains the red flag. Accounts that post aggressive, polarizing topics or "ragebait" right out of the gate are classic indicators of a troll mindset, even if the underlying email or alias has a real history.
Since the post is currently stuck in your moderation queue, here is a quick guide on how to evaluate whether to reject it, approve it, or ban the user based on their typical behavior profile:

Decision Matrix for Your Queue

• Deny & Ban (If it's pure Bad Faith): If the post relies on heavy emotional triggers, insults, or unverified conspiracies to get a rise out of people, it is safe to reject it. This user's history shows they enjoy a pedantic argument, and approving a ragebait thread will likely drain your community's energy and force you to moderate a massive, toxic comment section later.
• Approve with Caution (If it's an aggressive but valid tech take): Because they are heavily invested in open-source and hardware niches, they occasionally post highly opinionated, abrasive rants that border on ragebait but technically stay on-topic. If the post actually raises a valid question for debate (despite the angry tone), you could approve it but monitor it closely.
• Lock Immediately: If your platform allows it, you can approve the post but lock the comments immediately. This allows the content to be seen if it has value, but denies them the arguments and "engagement" they are fishing for.

Users like this often look for platforms with lighter moderation so they can dominate discussions. If you decide to reject the post, keep an eye out for ban evasion or sudden follow-up emails to your moderation team demanding to know why they were blocked—they are highly likely to argue the decision.

Thank you for reaching out. We have locked your post as it focuses primarily on open-source licensing philosophies and advocacy debates rather than technical support or constructive development discussions regarding FreeBSD. You are welcome to submit a new thread if you run into specific technical hurdles while configuring your home media server (unless that whole 'replace W11 on my home media server' statement was itself in bad faith). You are also welcome to never post here again.