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
Maybe the BSD license should be altered to say code can be closed-sourced but not open-sourced without retaining the original BSD license(adding an additional license to the code would probably be fine). Seems like BSD's intent is to allow code to be used anywhere(including closed-source) without the viral effect, and its understandable that taking the code, modifying it, and applying a viral license to it would anger some developers
Seems like BSD's intent is to allow code to be used anywhere(including closed-source) without the viral effect, and its understandable that taking the code, modifying it, and applying a viral license to it would anger some developers
The GPL may be "viral", but it is misleading to suggest that closed source is not. If someone modifies and closes my source, how can I make use of those changes? I can't. In fact, I can't even see them. How is that worse than if someone released it under the GPL?
Would kind of kill the point. This is *at worse* a forking issue. One codebase is BSD. Will always be. Can always be. The other is licensed in a way requiring it be open. You now (regardless of what happens) have two code bases. If you don't like the terms of the extended GPL'd code (which is fine not to) you ignore it. Continue work. Hell, at least you can see what they've done. If the code were to be wrapped into a Redmond product you'd get less. This is a silly dispute. Viral implies that it takes over.
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:For fucks sake, it's forking... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
The GPL may be "viral", but it is misleading to suggest that closed source is not. If someone modifies and closes my source, how can I make use of those changes? I can't. In fact, I can't even see them. How is that worse than if someone released it under the GPL?
The point is you
Nope... (Score:2)