I think your comments about GPL vs. BSD are a bit misleading. BSD is great, by the way- I’m very glad the various free/open BSDs exist, and they can be good choices for different applications. But Linux is significantly more successful as just a kernel, and GNU is significantly more successful as a collection of libraries and utilities, and GNU/Linux is more successful as an operating system than any of the BSDs. The fact that it was put together as a collection of components written by various people was arguably one of the primary purposes of the project, so I don’t really see how that’s a mark against it.

It also may be worth noting that BSD is not simply Unix-like, it is Unix. Your line of reasoning might end up compelling you to claim that only proprietary software engineering has lead to the development of a complete operating system.

And finally, slightly tongue-in-cheek (but not really)- there is a GNU-specific way to distribute and install software (GNU Guix), I use it, great package manager + OS, and you can run a complete GNU operating system (various Hurd OSes exist, but for full GNU, you can run Guix System with the Hurd). I don’t think that’s particularly important tbh (again, distributed contribution is one of the main goals of GNU and Linux), but fwiw, I think you’re also technically incorrect on this point.

I love that there are multiple different free and open source licenses, and creators can choose which ones suit their needs, no argument there!