[somat]

My understanding is that much of the point of openrsync is to create a second implementation of a protocol so the standards bodies don't balk at including it in their standards.

Or to put it more concretely, people working on the rpki standard(who happened to also be openbsd devs) wanted to use rsync to transfer bulk data. The standards body was hesitant, while rsync is ostensibly a documented protocol, there was only one implementation. So in true openbsd fashion they rolled up their sleeves and wrote that second implementation.

On use, there is nothing wrong with openrsync, however it may never hit feature parity with rsync, that is not a goal of the project, they want a specific subset of rsync features to support their rpki needs. If anyone else finds this useful that is great. So I suspect users will be those who want a bsd licensed rsync(apple) or them who are willing to give up features for openbsd quality code(myself).

[throwaway27448]

Why would we explicitly develop code legally available to capital?

[avadodin]

Most people using open licenses over right–restricting GPL–style licenses do so for philosophical reasons.

They don't necessarily think they are better for getting reciprocal contributions from evil corporations even though many do argue that today, especially after GPLv3.

See the redis licensing debacle and why and how it was resolved. If I understand it correctly, the FSF could technically sell all of GNU tools to Microsoft which could in turn keep them closed source including all contributions over the past 40 years. Not without losing all of their remaining credibility, but still.

[reverius42]

Are you new to the concept of open source? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source

There's some discussion here that might help answer your question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source#Economics