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
The point is that we have the GPL camp and we have the BSD camp. The GPL camp takes code from the BSD camp and the BSD camp is not able to merge those changes back into BSD code. The issue here is not that this is a license violation; it is not. BSD people, like me, want other people to use our code. The complaint here is about the hypocrisy of the GPL camp, who claim that they don't want anyone to use their code without giving back the changes, but then turn around and do just that to the BSD people's code. Again, I emphasize that this action is not a problem to us; we want it and we expect it. The problem is with the GPL camp saying how they are somehow "more free".
The GPL camp takes code from the BSD camp and the BSD camp is not able to merge those changes back into BSD code.
And that's the inherant problem with the BSD license, people can mod your code and not give it back to you.
The complaint here is about the hypocrisy of the GPL camp, who claim that they don't want anyone to use their code without giving back the changes, but then turn around and do just that to the BSD people's code.
There's no hypocrisy in that. Anyone can use the changes that where GPL'
There's no hypocrisy in that. Anyone can use the changes that where GPL'd, but you just have to adhere to the GPL license for those changes. The hyprocisy is the BSD camp saying "be free to use our code any way you want" and when people take them up on the offer, they complain.
You guys are confused. BSD code does make it into proprietary products, but you do not get to omit the fact that there's BSD code in it. We see it all the time: "Copyright The Regents of the University of California (etc.)..." So, you
> There's no hypocrisy in that. Anyone can use the changes that where GPL'd, > but you just have to adhere to the GPL
Exactly! But because I can not adhere to the GPL, I can not use those changes. You are simply engaging in pointless wordplay here. It's like giving me a "choice" of giving you a million dollars or dying. It really isn't a choice at all if I have to do as you tell me.
> Really now, why should you care what someone says? > What's the big deal? Get a grip, son.
The big deal is that people listen to those GPL fanatics saying how their code is more "free" and then go and release their projects under the GPL without understanding all the issues. When people are duped into going to the GPL camp, the BSD camp fails to gain code that we could have used. Since one of the reasons for having free software is to be able to build on other people's work, this really is a big deal.
BSD people, like me, want other people to use our code.
Except if they release under the GPL, it seems.
The complaint here is about the hypocrisy of the GPL camp, who claim that they don't want anyone to use their code without giving back the changes, but then turn around and do just that to the BSD people's code.
They can use their code - they just can't release it under BSD. I don't get it - if the GPL is bad for making it so that code can't be released under BSD, why are BSD people moaning that they don't w
> They can use their code - they just can't release it under BSD.
That's the point.
> I don't get it - if the GPL is bad for making it so that code can't be released > under BSD, why are BSD people moaning that they don't want their code released under GPL?
Like I already said, we are not moaning that we don't want our code released under GPL. We are simply pointing out that by locking us out (and you are locking us out because we can't incorporate GPL code into ours without changing to GPL, which I wi
We are simply pointing out that by locking us out (and you are locking us out because we can't incorporate GPL code into ours without changing to GPL, which I will do over my DEAD BODY), you are no different from proprietary software companies.
In this respect, correct. What's the problem? If you don't want people doing this with your code, then you shouldn't be releasing it under BSD. The whole point about BSD is it gives freedom for other people to do what they like, including releasing derivative works u
I've never seen this happen. Almost everyone I know in the GPL camp acknowledges that the BSD license is more free than the GPL license. They believe, however, that loss of some freedoms is necessary to ensure others. They would argue that allowing their changes back into the BSD code would actually result in less freedom because it would allow others to make changes to their code proprietary and they don't wish to assist proprietary efforts. I am personally a BSD person. I like the BSD license much more tha
I have been around GPL an BSDL projects for a long time. I dont care about license wars but I will say this-- any community is capable of defending itself if it is strong. IANAL, and in cases like this it is probably a good idea to have legal advice. In BSDL projects, you have no legal recourses, but you do have economic ones such as: 1) Create similar changes embodying the same ideas but implemented using different code. Clean-room the changes if necessary. If they don't want to give you the changes, yo
How is this different from someone taking your BSD code and wrapping it into a commercial project? The only difference here is that the BSD camp seems to see GPL'd modification as some kind of bait-and-hook. But the GPL camp is giving back. Their just not doing it in a way that suits *you*. Ironically it would be much less an issue if they simple took the code and where never seen or heard from again. Instead they share the changes, all be it these changes are under the terms of a different license. You sti
> How is this different from someone taking your BSD code and wrapping it into a commercial project?
Precisely! There is no difference. My point was exactly that the GPL camp says how bad BSD license is because it allows people to take your code and lock it in such a way that you won't be able to use it any more, which they interpret as "losing your code", and "immoral", and "not giving back". Well, here we have the GPL camp doing exactly the same thing to us BSD people and all of a sudden it's ok. This i
How is this different from a commercial company who takes GPL code, makes a commercial product with it, and then charges you a million dollars and requires you to sign an NDA for the privilege of getting the code? See, you can get the code! See, they are giving back! It just isn't in a way that suits *you*, isn't it? And if this happened, Stallman would cry bloody murder. And don't bring up that the above scenario violates the GPL; yes, it does, but that's not the point. The point here is political, not a l
> So getting upset because something wasn't given back seems very contradictory to your own license.
Man, can't you read? I keep repeating it, but it just doesn't get through: 1) We are not upset because something wasn't given back. We don't expect it. 2) We are upset because it wasn't given back by the GPL people. Specificially. Not because they took it and didn't give back, but because they say that this action (taking and not giving back) is precisely the reason why everyone ought to favor GPL over BSD.
But the key difference is if you swapped scenarios regarding the BSD/GPL issue you'd be in violation of the terms of the GPL. The GPL isn't a nice license. It's an open license. People seem to get that mixed up. We say the code can be open. We also say that the code must REMAIN open. We watch for violations and we enforce this license. So while it isn't exactly possible to steal BSD code it *is* possible to steal GPL code. We aren't saying: hey, I've done this work and you can extend it and use it however y
> But the key difference is if you swapped scenarios regarding the BSD/GPL > issue you'd be in violation of the terms of the GPL. Yes, but that is not the key issue. It isn't even an issue at all. The issue is with the action: when you force someone to use the GPL for the code they wrote, you are dictating terms on their code, which is why we hate you.
> So while it isn't exactly possible to steal BSD code it *is* possible to steal GPL code.
Evil. That would be an interesting turn. It's an ideological difference. But you keep coming back to the making the code unavailable, which if it were true I would think would be quite terrible. In fact totally unreasonable. But the code that is adopted by the GPL programmers is never TAKEN from you. It's the extended, more specifically, the extensions that are out of reach. So you're getting upset about code that didn't exist separate from the GPL. Worse, we're going back and forth after you've already sho
The problem is with the GPL camp saying how they are somehow "more free".
This requires an answer to "Who's more free?"
IIRC, the GPL came about when Stallman used a piece of software, liked it, but found a bug. He could not fix the bug, the developer for whatever reason would not modify the software to remove the bug. This lead to his vision of giving users the freedom to change the behavior of the software they use. This is where the new clauses in the GPLv3, they are additions to ensure users can modi
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
This is not the point (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And that's the inherant problem with the BSD license, people can mod your code and not give it back to you.
The complaint here is about the hypocrisy of the GPL camp, who claim that they don't want anyone to use their code without giving back the changes, but then turn around and do just that to the BSD people's code.
There's no hypocrisy in that. Anyone can use the changes that where GPL'
Ball of confusion (Score:3, Interesting)
You guys are confused. BSD code does make it into proprietary products, but you do not get to omit the fact that there's BSD code in it. We see it all the time: "Copyright The Regents of the University of California (etc.)..."
So, you
Re: (Score:2)
> but you just have to adhere to the GPL
Exactly! But because I can not adhere to the GPL, I can not use those changes. You are simply engaging in pointless wordplay here. It's like giving me a "choice" of giving you a million dollars or dying. It really isn't a choice at all if I have to do as you tell me.
Re: (Score:2)
> What's the big deal? Get a grip, son.
The big deal is that people listen to those GPL fanatics saying how their code is more "free" and then go and release their projects under the GPL without understanding all the issues. When people are duped into going to the GPL camp, the BSD camp fails to gain code that we could have used. Since one of the reasons for having free software is to be able to build on other people's work, this really is a big deal.
Re: (Score:1)
Except if they release under the GPL, it seems.
The complaint here is about the hypocrisy of the GPL camp, who claim that they don't want anyone to use their code without giving back the changes, but then turn around and do just that to the BSD people's code.
They can use their code - they just can't release it under BSD. I don't get it - if the GPL is bad for making it so that code can't be released under BSD, why are BSD people moaning that they don't w
Re: (Score:2)
That's the point.
> I don't get it - if the GPL is bad for making it so that code can't be released
> under BSD, why are BSD people moaning that they don't want their code released under GPL?
Like I already said, we are not moaning that we don't want our code released under GPL. We are simply pointing out that by locking us out (and you are locking us out because we can't incorporate GPL code into ours without changing to GPL, which I wi
Re: (Score:1)
In this respect, correct. What's the problem? If you don't want people doing this with your code, then you shouldn't be releasing it under BSD. The whole point about BSD is it gives freedom for other people to do what they like, including releasing derivative works u
Re: (Score:1)
I am personally a BSD person. I like the BSD license much more tha
So, fight back! (Score:2)
In BSDL projects, you have no legal recourses, but you do have economic ones such as:
1) Create similar changes embodying the same ideas but implemented using different code. Clean-room the changes if necessary. If they don't want to give you the changes, yo
Still missing the point... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Precisely! There is no difference. My point was exactly that the GPL camp says how bad BSD license is because it allows people to take your code and lock it in such a way that you won't be able to use it any more, which they interpret as "losing your code", and "immoral", and "not giving back". Well, here we have the GPL camp doing exactly the same thing to us BSD people and all of a sudden it's ok. This i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Man, can't you read? I keep repeating it, but it just doesn't get through:
1) We are not upset because something wasn't given back. We don't expect it.
2) We are upset because it wasn't given back by the GPL people. Specificially. Not because they took it and didn't give back, but because they say that this action (taking and not giving back) is precisely the reason why everyone ought to favor GPL over BSD.
Obviously we could go back and forth.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> issue you'd be in violation of the terms of the GPL.
Yes, but that is not the key issue. It isn't even an issue at all. The issue is with the action: when you force someone to use the GPL for the code they wrote, you are dictating terms on their code, which is why we hate you.
> So while it isn't exactly possible to steal BSD code it *is* possible to steal GPL code.
Legally true, but not morally true.
> No GPL developer has
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
This requires an answer to "Who's more free?"
IIRC, the GPL came about when Stallman used a piece of software, liked it, but found a bug. He could not fix the bug, the developer for whatever reason would not modify the software to remove the bug. This lead to his vision of giving users the freedom to change the behavior of the software they use. This is where the new clauses in the GPLv3, they are additions to ensure users can modi