386BSD was available a decade before that as well. BSD's vastly predate Linux AND BSD was open source. RMS and FSF didn't invent open source and the "GNU System" is irrelevant.
Hogwash! First, while good chunks of BSD were open-source, important parts of it were AT&T proprietary code, in other words, not open source! This problem was not rectified until after the lawsuit, the resolution of which did not occur until after Linux had been introduced and was a viable alternative to 386BSD.
Second, while BSD predates Linux by a decade, 386BSD does not. It was released in 1992, a year after Linus's first attempt at a Linux kernel. Now it is true that 386BSD was more functional in 1992 than Linux was at the same time, Linux quickly caught up. Linux is really, in the end, just a Unix-like kernel; the GNU compilers and Unix-like utilities made the rest of Linux as a Unix-like operating system possible.
And I would posit that the GPL is a better open-source license in that it requires any changes made to the code to be shared with others, whether they are made by a paid employee working for some corporate entity or a volunteer. The earlier open-source licenses did not have this requirement.
So get your facts and your timeline straight, dude!