Plenty of companies simply avoid the gpl because it complicates things, and stick to more permissive licenses for their open source efforts.
Plenty more just do what the fuck they want regardless of what the gpl says.
Indeed, and this is why the same thing happens in the BSD world. There are many examples of large and small companies, competitors, working on the same parts of FreeBSD.
Enlightened companies contribute to Free and Open Source software because it's in their best interest, not directly because of the license. Conversely, there are countless examples of companies who don't think it's in their interest, and willfully violate the GPL.
Of course I'm speaking generally, I don't know the backstory here so there might be some other things causing the bad blood. But I would prefer we as a community would not attack people/companies just for not contributing.
I've addressed openbsd elsewhere in this stream.
I can legally walk down the street cursing at everyone I meet. I can try to learn things about people, and then use that to make them feel terrible. I can start a business that intentionally preys on people in bad situations in ways that will make them worse off.
I'm allowed to do all that. I believe doing any of them are varying degrees of morally wrong.
One should never confuse law and morality. They are not the same, and what's worse than confusing them is trying to make them the same.
Because even if I buy you a 'free beer', I can still think you're a jerk if you throw it back in my face.
Choosing not to do so may still shine a light on your character.
As in "one beer"? More like the mythical free beer river.
Anyway, your point still stand. It may not be a "moral thing to do", yet one could appreciate others not to pee in the mythical free beer river.
Because laws and moral codes differ. As an absurd example, it is legal (in most countries?) to cheat on your spouse, but it's not considered morally okay (otherwise it wouldn't be called "cheating").
I don't want to start a flame war, but if the BSD license allows for them to do this, why is it morally wrong?
That is - how can you complain when the license explicitly allows for this? If you (not you personally, of course - but the OpenBSD project) didn't want this to happen, then the license would need to be changed to prevent it.
Of course then, companies wouldn't be as willing to use the code, as we tend to see with the GPL.
But if companies are just going to take the code, modify it, and not contribute the changes back (or contribute little back), where's the loss by using another license?
If the loss is "but the code then won't be used in the greater ecosystem", why complain when it is?
Again - I'm not trying to cause a flame war; everybody has their license and needs. I'm just trying to understand why there is complaints when code isn't contributed back under the BSD license, when it explicitly allows for this.
Furthermore, I am wondering if there is anything we can do about it, that doesn't cause the kind of ire to rise when the GPL is invoked instead. Perhaps there isn't a solution, but I'd love to hear ideas on the subject.