It is possible to license code under both licenses, especially licensing BSD code as GPL code. Unfortunately, doing it the other way around again defeats the purpose of the GPL.
However, let's make your example theoretical. (I'm sure this has happened before, but being specific in this case only leads to bickering over facts that don't appy to the discussion:)
Let's say that a device driver foo was originally written under a BSD style license. Some random GPL fanatic comes along, takes this driver, adds to it, and releases *his* driver under a GPL style license. The options the original BSD fanatic has are: (1) continue to hack his own driver. (2) hack the other driver under the GPL.
If this particular BSD fanatic shares anyhow, what does he have to lose by contributing to the GPL'ed driver? If he doesn't... well, we know he has already, because of the BSD style license.
The only reason the 'enforced sharing' clause is there (I know, it sounds like something from the cold war) in the GPL is because at one point in time people *stopped* sharing, and started turning free applications into proprietary ones. I don't want to take sides here, but I'm sure it started somewhere around RMS writing Emacs and other companies adding to it without contributing back. Since they violated an unwritten tradition, (around the BSD-style licenses) the GPL was born.
If people always shared their code, there would be no GPL, and there would be much rejoicing. They don't, so the people who don't want to see their code used by other people without the benefits of the additions to that code use the GPL. Those who are trusting of human nature, or want to improve other people's code without necessarily improving their own use a BSD license.
I guess it comes down to if you want to help others, or if you want everyone to help each other. Therefore, it's a matter of opinion.:)
Aww man, you run Linux too? So you mean that I *still* haven't had an intelligent conversation with a BSD user?:)
Actually, I tried a boot disk with FreeBSD on it, and I liked the kernel configuration, that was slick. However, I miss all the friendly options from the GNU utils. And I thought that both the device layout and the way all the system utilities pointed to one big executable were very strange. I like to know how much space ls takes up. I hope this isn't a standard configuration, but rather something done for this boot disk. However, it was odd.
Why I choose Linux (Score:1)
However, let's make your example theoretical. (I'm sure this has happened before, but being specific in this case only leads to bickering over facts that don't appy to the discussion
Let's say that a device driver foo was originally written under a BSD style license. Some random GPL fanatic comes along, takes this driver, adds to it, and releases *his* driver under a GPL style license. The options the original BSD fanatic has are: (1) continue to hack his own driver. (2) hack the other driver under the GPL.
If this particular BSD fanatic shares anyhow, what does he have to lose by contributing to the GPL'ed driver? If he doesn't... well, we know he has already, because of the BSD style license.
The only reason the 'enforced sharing' clause is there (I know, it sounds like something from the cold war) in the GPL is because at one point in time people *stopped* sharing, and started turning free applications into proprietary ones. I don't want to take sides here, but I'm sure it started somewhere around RMS writing Emacs and other companies adding to it without contributing back. Since they violated an unwritten tradition, (around the BSD-style licenses) the GPL was born.
If people always shared their code, there would be no GPL, and there would be much rejoicing. They don't, so the people who don't want to see their code used by other people without the benefits of the additions to that code use the GPL. Those who are trusting of human nature, or want to improve other people's code without necessarily improving their own use a BSD license.
I guess it comes down to if you want to help others, or if you want everyone to help each other. Therefore, it's a matter of opinion.
Aww man, you run Linux too? So you mean that I *still* haven't had an intelligent conversation with a BSD user?
Actually, I tried a boot disk with FreeBSD on it, and I liked the kernel configuration, that was slick. However, I miss all the friendly options from the GNU utils. And I thought that both the device layout and the way all the system utilities pointed to one big executable were very strange. I like to know how much space ls takes up. I hope this isn't a standard configuration, but rather something done for this boot disk. However, it was odd.