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.
You're dead wrong about it being "rude" to "deny" derivative work to the original author. That's the whole fucking point of BSD, isn't it? That granting access to ANYONE of the derivative works is not required. This is usually the main (only?) point put forward when arguing that BSD is "more Free" than GPL. People using the GPL to create derivative works owe nothing legally or ethically to the BSD originators that close sourced developers using the same BSD code do not, and to suggest otherwise just because the original authors can look but they can't touch is ridiculous at best.
If Theo de Raadt wants to make the point that people shouldn't be cutting out the original BSD license that is fine, and it should definitely be done. But it's a completely different argument than this whining about "community" and "losing friends." He's just upset because he realized that people can use the BSD code and give away their versions without having to give it back to him, too. For that he's just being a prick.
Actually, I don't think that's the issue. He must've realised that can happen to BSD-licensed code a long time ago. So the problem is another one. There's an unspoken agreement in place for kernel drivers. The BSD camp brings their code, the Linux camp brings their code, they work together and then both camps get to take the common result home. Under their own respective licenses! In order to achieve this they dual-licensed the code they put together. But now the GPL camp is breaking the agreement and puttin
You're dead wrong about it being "rude" to "deny" derivative work to the original author. That's the whole fucking point of BSD, isn't it? That granting access to ANYONE of the derivative works is not required.
Saying thank you is not required but not doing so is rude. It's not a terribly difficult concept.
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:2, Insightful)
If Theo de Raadt wants to make the point that people shouldn't be cutting out the original BSD license that is fine, and it should definitely be done. But it's a completely different argument than this whining about "community" and "losing friends." He's just upset because he realized that people can use the BSD code and give away their versions without having to give it back to him, too. For that he's just being a prick.
Re: (Score:2)
In order to achieve this they dual-licensed the code they put together. But now the GPL camp is breaking the agreement and puttin
Re: (Score:2)
Saying thank you is not required but not doing so is rude. It's not a terribly difficult concept.