The only option should not to be to take away user freedoms. BSD licenses are popular with proprietary software writers because they can use it without any of the restrictions that seek to preserve the rights of the end user. Instead you get proprietary software stacks like Apple and Android that seek to lock the users out of anything not granted by the company.

The correct way to stop this is to file bugs against the software for not matching the de-facto standard of the copied software.

> The only way to stop this is for the original author(s) to release this under a BSD license.

Would that stop it? My understanding was that at least OpenBSD tended do redo things for technical reasons, not just licensing

It's really no different than every other BSD utility (and SysV utility, if you're running one of those) being different than the GNU ones. We've coped with it for fifty years at this point.

> Apple and Android will prefer it,

My thought upon reading this is why would Apple or Android bother including rsync? I've noticed that I've needed to install it manually on fresh installs of Debian, FreeBSD...

But then, I just checked a recent Mac that I don't use much and haven't put much on, and it's installed.

Basically like GNU Tar/CPIO and BSD Tar/CPIO. I've largely standardised towards using the bsd variant everywhere (especially since now even Windows ships it and it handles lots of other archive formats using the `tar` command) but it's always a pain to install it everywhere