there are also many, many successful companies out there who write GPL'd code, and many sucessful end-users of that code, which is something that cannot be denied. As usual, your remarks are pretty inflammatory, and reveals your lack of insight about the GPL and the companies that use it, and futhers the terrible (and incorrect) stereotype of veteran BSD users' rhetoric.

The common misconception (one that you fall prey to quite a bit) is that companies who write GPL'd code don't place all of their value of their business into just the code...they also hold value (and quite alot of it) in support and consultancy, something that the BSD community does not have in such a large scale. But that's ok, because BSD'd code and its commuities have other good points. Here are the apples, there are the oranges.

There are great things about BSD-licensed code. But there is also great things about companies who use GPL'd code. You're just not seeing them, because you have some blinders on. I would argue that the programmers who work for IBM, RedHat, Suse, etc. feel as though their paycheck is quite friendly.

Like I have said elsewhere, for every "viral" pro-GPL zealout out there, there is an equally zealous veteran pro-BSD person who may or may not be upset that their favorite OS isn't getting quite as much attention as Linux.

My unsolicited advice to you is: don't worry so much about it, and try to realize that the goals and characteristics of both licenses have their good and bad points.