"is a reson I kept on providing the same example over and over again..."

But it isn't a good example. The use of portions of the BSD stack by MS didn't hurt BSD one little bit. If anything, it has enhanced their reputation.

BSD is far from a failure... it is a well handled, stable, fast supported operating system that in many ways lacks the flaws that have recently been plaguing the Linux project (stability, bugs, communications problems and so on). Lest we forget as well the entire Apple/OSX use of BSD.

BSD is popular with both users, developers and businesses because it does not have the legal flaws of GNU license. Lots of companies have helped with the development of BSD (as with Linux) because they can contribute without fear.  Many, many companies won't go near GNU code due to the fuzziness of the license. I know that while i may have an urge to contribute to open source programs I absolutely won't do so to GPL'd code... it's too hard to tell when someone there will claim contamination in my commercial work.

The BSD license means freedom. It means you are releasing your code because you want people to use it. The GPL means you are releasing it hoping to "infect" other code and lock those people into your political or ethical views. It may be "open", but the GPL sure isn't "free" in any sense but dollar cost.