Yes, it would be an absolutely horrible thing if someone actually started to use the OS.

You mean, like the Linux kernel with it's GPLv2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux#Copyright.2C_trademark.2C...)

Apple gives people who want to make use of their beautiful code the finger. Why not do the same to potential Steve Jobs'? If BSD had been licensed under the GNU GPL, OS X would either have to have been built from scratch, or be free software.

They also backport a lot of it upstream to FreeBSD. It is not a black and white question.

If one go by market share, the code sent back upstream are worth far less than 1% of Os X.

So? That doesn't change that Apple usage of FreeBSD codebase is still a net win for the FreeBSD project. It is still a win-win situation even if the win isn't totally symmetrical.

Linux is GPL and that didn't stop anyone from using it. I don't understand your point, may you explain it?

Linux is GPLv2. But I guess no one uses that... :)

It's Plan 9, so I don't think they're in great danger of that.

:(

Finally someone that actually understood what I meant. Gaining traction is a lot more important for getting work done than the contributions back from *GPL ever has been.

since when does money equals being used ?

it seems to me the linux kernel is being used in many places.

This argument is consistently colluded with the other argument for open and transparent software. They are two topics independent of each other, IMHO. If you care about open software, it does not imply you care about preventing others from using your software in a leechy fashion.

How does the GPL prevent this?

You think that people don't leech on the GPL? Great, then I have found just the customer for some snake oil!

There wouldn't be the whole GPL violations thingy if people were not already taking without giving under the GPL.

That is why they are violations. With other licenses it is allowed to do so.

So you acknowledge today some people do already leech as you put it, under the GPL. It may be a violation, and the other party may laugh as they are in a different juridiction. So, what was your point again?

We have a law against theft, yet there are continous occurences of people stealing and getting away with it, so by your logic we should remove the law against theft.

You're confusing "forbid" with "rendering impossible".

> There wouldn't be the whole GPL violations thingy if people were not already taking without giving under the GPL.

Illegally so.