In one sense, the GPL does hinder two-way code sharing. You can't distribute, modify, etc. a project as a whole under the terms of the BSD license if some code in the project is under the GPL. So adding GPL-ed code to a BSD-licensed project does hinder two-way sharing. However, the fact to the matter is that it is the _BSD_ license that allows you to do this. The BSD license simply does not require you to share your changes.
So, if you are asking yourself why changes aren't being shared back, the answer reall
If dual-BSD/GPL-licensed code is used, then changes can be distributed under the GPL or BSD by the author of derivative works. However that applies to the derivative work; the COPYING file in any source code tarball dictates how you handle the entire derivative work. The original code would still be BSD licensed.
The problem here is not that BSD licensed code has no legal obligation to contribute back, or that the GPL has a legal obligation to report changes, but that GPL licensing code as a derivative work of dual licensed code is against the policy of 99% of BSD-licensed projects. No BSD licensed code will ever integrate the fixes to the Atheros driver because it causes a licensing mess - not only the evil corporations, but the FRIENDLY corporations, BSD-licensed operating systems and toolkits where relevant.
The same way the Linux developers band-aid everything to be GPL so that changes MUST be given back (a kind of heavy-handed moral imperitive enshrined in a legal document) works just fine on the BSD license where the simple, IMPLIED moral imperitive works just as well. BSD licensed code fits very nicely in GPL software distributions and as Theo remarked, a lot of FSF code contains BSD licensed works. There is no need to relicense as it kicks the BSD developers in the nuts.
Summary:
Yes, sometimes it is good to put two fingers up to Microsoft and Evil Industry, but it is not good to kick Theo in the nuts while you do it (however glorious and satisfying that may be to some).
For once I agree with Theo - but then I share his loathing of the GPL (it is too heavy-handed and forces it's morality on you like a preacher in the street won't leave you alone) and am quite a proponent of the BSD license myself.
Yes, but! (Score:5, Insightful)
However, the fact to the matter is that it is the _BSD_ license that allows you to do this. The BSD license simply does not require you to share your changes.
So, if you are asking yourself why changes aren't being shared back, the answer reall
Re:Yes, but! (Score:3, Insightful)
If dual-BSD/GPL-licensed code is used, then changes can be distributed under the GPL or BSD by the author of derivative works. However that applies to the derivative work; the COPYING file in any source code tarball dictates how you handle the entire derivative work. The original code would still be BSD licensed.
The problem here is not that BSD licensed code has no legal obligation to contribute back, or that the GPL has a legal obligation to report changes, but that GPL licensing code as a derivative work of dual licensed code is against the policy of 99% of BSD-licensed projects. No BSD licensed code will ever integrate the fixes to the Atheros driver because it causes a licensing mess - not only the evil corporations, but the FRIENDLY corporations, BSD-licensed operating systems and toolkits where relevant.
The same way the Linux developers band-aid everything to be GPL so that changes MUST be given back (a kind of heavy-handed moral imperitive enshrined in a legal document) works just fine on the BSD license where the simple, IMPLIED moral imperitive works just as well. BSD licensed code fits very nicely in GPL software distributions and as Theo remarked, a lot of FSF code contains BSD licensed works. There is no need to relicense as it kicks the BSD developers in the nuts.
Summary:
Yes, sometimes it is good to put two fingers up to Microsoft and Evil Industry, but it is not good to kick Theo in the nuts while you do it (however glorious and satisfying that may be to some).
For once I agree with Theo - but then I share his loathing of the GPL (it is too heavy-handed and forces it's morality on you like a preacher in the street won't leave you alone) and am quite a proponent of the BSD license myself.