This is nothing new. Provide a permissive license and expecting everything to be returned to you is contradictory to the very license you've chose. Forking happens all the time, usually around licensing or management issues. So aside from the little dust storm we've seen recently regarding the wifi driver and the copyright clause I don't see how this is news.
The GPL and BSD type licenses coexist perfectly, so long as both parties take the time to understand each other. Which is mostly the way it's happened
Provide a permissive license and expecting everything to be returned to you is contradictory to the very license you've chose.
First, it's rude. You don't deny a derivative work to the original author. Second, it's ilelgal. You may not file off someone's license just because you disagree with it. A few Linux developers have demonstrated that they're rude scofflaws.
Is it nice to give back under the BSD? Sure! But not doing so is not rude. They could have used the GPL if wanted it to be given back under the same license. Instead by using BSD they explicitly give you the legal right and moral OK to not give back.
Erasing the copyright info is definitely illegal. No arguments there.
Instead by using BSD they explicitly give you the legal right and moral OK to not give back.
No, just the legal right. Unlike the GPL, the BSD license does not attempt to dictate morals. It's up to the morals of the users to do with as they please. Now we see what the morals really are of the FSF in that they're eager to take and not share back when they get the opportunity.
Just because you don't have the legal obligation under pain of lawsuit not to contribute back does not mean that it's okay to snub the original author. When I share I am not demanding that you share back. It doesn't matter if it's code, time or sandwiches, I am not imposing any obligation on you. But that does not absolve you of the morality of sharing. You should be sharing back simply because you should be sharing.
if the author cared about sharing he could have used the GPL. i have no remorse for people releasing under BSD that throw a fit when people actually distribute (or don't) under terms of the license. i say this as someone who releases most of his code under the zlib or bsd licences.
For fucks sake, it's forking... (Score:5, Informative)
The GPL and BSD type licenses coexist perfectly, so long as both parties take the time to understand each other. Which is mostly the way it's happened
Re: (Score:0, Troll)
First, it's rude. You don't deny a derivative work to the original author. Second, it's ilelgal. You may not file off someone's license just because you disagree with it. A few Linux developers have demonstrated that they're rude scofflaws.
Re:For fucks sake, it's forking... (Score:3, Insightful)
Is it nice to give back under the BSD? Sure! But not doing so is not rude. They could have used the GPL if wanted it to be given back under the same license. Instead by using BSD they explicitly give you the legal right and moral OK to not give back.
Erasing the copyright info is definitely illegal. No arguments there.
Re: (Score:2)
No, just the legal right. Unlike the GPL, the BSD license does not attempt to dictate morals. It's up to the morals of the users to do with as they please. Now we see what the morals really are of the FSF in that they're eager to take and not share back when they get the opportunity.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because you don't have the legal obligation under pain of lawsuit not to contribute back does not mean that it's okay to snub the original author. When I share I am not demanding that you share back. It doesn't matter if it's code, time or sandwiches, I am not imposing any obligation on you. But that does not absolve you of the morality of sharing. You should be sharing back simply because you should be sharing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is entirely possible to encourage people to share without holding a lawsuit-laden license to their head.