No, but pushing that agenda via architectural level changes is not exactly a way to get a good architecture.

An architecture is a structural design made to achieve certain goals. They just happen to have another goal to achieve.

It's even bad by that standard. When you compromise the function of the system to achieve that kind of goal, you end up losing out on both.

offering no alternative but "open source" on Linux is certainly not the most business friendly way to go about it.

It certainly is. "Business" just needs to internalize the fact that baking a bigger cake gets you more cake than fighting like a starved peasant over crumbs.

Why would I or anyone care if it's business friendly. The people who just want to sell hardware should have no qualms about open source.

Being business-friendly is not a goal, and shouldn't be a goal.

> Being business-friendly is not a goal

Sure, it is, for lots of people. Even, apparently, the FSF, hence the reason non-consumer products are not subject to anti-tivoization rules in GPLv3.

I wonder why the BSDs haven't caught on for embedded appliances and phones while Linux did with a more restrictive and less business friendly license. Sure some companies like iXSystems and Juniper adopted BSDs, but the vast majority used Linux.

The manpower behind Linux is superior. Not sure if it's the "vast majority", but for many business cases following the GPL(v2) rules simply is not a problem.

Both the PS4 and the Nintendo Switch run on FreeBSD, by the way.

>Both the PS4 and the Nintendo Switch run on FreeBSD, by the way.

Not exactly from what I've read, the PS4 runs 'Orbis OS' which is based upon FreeBSD 9, meanwhile the Nintendo Switch is using the network stack from FreeBSD, but also stuff from Android and the custom OS they wrote for 3DS.

Linux was available under a free license earlier (and alone) and as such developed a huge lead in community that no free OS has caught up with; that has quality, choice, and skill availability impacts that generally dwarf licensing issues for businesses.

Being business-friendly is not and should not be anyone's goal in licensing software. Being business-friendly is shit.

In my opininon, any particular license can only be friendly or unfriendly towards particular business models but not towards business in general.

Some businesses feel threatened by some open source licenses and other businesses are using the same open source licenses to do the threatening.

The funding for many important open source projects comes from global corporations that use it as part of their strategy, sometimes dominating entire industries based on open source.

A large number of small consulting businesses are based entirely on open source software as well.

Open source is not meant to be anti-commercial, nor would that make any sense, because "commercial" is what most of us do to make a living. That is not what takes away anyone's freedoms.

What does take away many freedoms is the fact that none of the widely used open source licenses fulfill their original purpose.

Linking rights to distribution once meant that users of the software got those rights. Now, in the age of the data center, end users get no rights at all and software can be modified freely by those who run the data centers without granting anyone access to those modifications.

Software has become more opaque than it has ever been before since the dawn of the PC age. Even without access to source code we had more control over Microsoft Excel than we now have over anything that runs in a data center, regardless of whether it is nominally "open source" or not.

As to your last point, this is what the AGPL is intended to solve.

I know, but almost no one uses it.

"Being business-friendly is shit". --> Who pays your bills mate? Fairies or a business who employs you, pays you a salary and you know, the inherent Darwinist biological urge to move up the food (value) chain to survive built into all living beings?