There's a misunderstanding. The main pain point in source available licenses is the conversion of the repository to "for your eyes only", i.e. not being able to take your old contribution (and its newer iterations) and apply it elsewhere.
Using it internally is not problem. Most developers and companies think about usage, but this is not the main point.
In short:
- BSD is about developer freedom.
- GPL is about user freedom.
- Source available is about setting company free while cuffing the user and blocking the developers.
People thought that BSD has the same freedom as GPL when it comes to derivations and openness guarantees, but get visibly upset when they discover that it isn't.
Many people told it over the years. BSD allows tons of shenanigans like this, but developers didn't want to listen, because BSD was more convenient for them on many fronts (i.e. Just grab and go and forget).
Using it internally is not problem. Most developers and companies think about usage, but this is not the main point.
In short:
- BSD is about developer freedom.
- GPL is about user freedom.
- Source available is about setting company free while cuffing the user and blocking the developers.
People thought that BSD has the same freedom as GPL when it comes to derivations and openness guarantees, but get visibly upset when they discover that it isn't.
Many people told it over the years. BSD allows tons of shenanigans like this, but developers didn't want to listen, because BSD was more convenient for them on many fronts (i.e. Just grab and go and forget).