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
Can you explain how forking from BSD to GPL works? Because the diff showed what appeared to be relicensing, and removed a clause that purported to be unremovable. So how does one take a BSD work and re-release it under GPL without violating the BSD?
I know that it's possible, by design; I'm just getting really confused as to how it works.
The correct way of doing this is to include the BSD code in a larger GPL'd work. If you wrote, for example, a Linux kernel module, based on BSD code, you could keep the code under a BSD license. The combined work of kernel and module, however, would be GPL'd. If the module incorporated any code from Linux other than public interface (not subject to copyright), then the module would also become GPL'd on its own, although individual files might retain their BSD license.
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:2)
I know that it's possible, by design; I'm just getting really confused as to how it works.
Re: (Score:2)
For drivers, I'd have thought the L