GPL Hindering Two-Way Code Sharing? 456
An anonymous reader writes "KernelTrap has some fascinating coverage of the recent rift between the OpenBSD developers and the Linux kernel developers. Proponents of the GPL defend their license for enforcing that their code can always be shared. However in the current debate the GPL is being added to BSD-licensed code, thereby preventing it from being shared back with the original authors of the code. Thus, a share-and-share-alike license is effectively preventing two-way sharing." We discussed an instance of this one-way effect a few days back.
The Apple Tree (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Simple solution (Score:5, Interesting)
I think the point of the story is the following:
1. Developer A writes some code for OpenBSD (or whatever)
2. Developer B says "that's cool, I wish Linux had that"
3. Developer B ports developer A's code to Linux
4. Developer B then starts improving on A's code
However, developer B doesn't want to release his changes under the BSD license, so the improved version goes out GPL-only. Developer A says "hey, wait, that sucks", because now he can't incorporate those changes back into OpenBSD, which does (I assume) have a policy that all code must be BSD-licensed.
One one hand, it's unfortunate, because OpenBSD loses out. On the other hand, the original author wrote the code knowing that someone could take it and not release changes (for instance, incorporate it into Windows or Mac OS X or SunOS or something like that), and this really isn't all that much different.
Guys, i dont get the whole discussion. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Yes, but! (Score:5, Interesting)
No, Theo, I promised no such thing. Just like nobody promises to share their changes with the BSD team when they take advantage of BSDL'ed code. The BSD'ers say people ought to be able to do what they like with their code. Well, what the GPL'ers would like to do is protect their modifications from being appropriated by people who won't share the code. If they automatically hand their changes back to the BSD folks to distribute as BSD code, then they lose the protections they wanted from the GPL in the first place.
Theo is basically saying, "The Linux people are hypocrites because they say they believe in software freedom but they don't believe in my definition of software freedom." Which is pretty lame.
Re:For fucks sake, it's forking... (Score:1, Interesting)
Just thought you should know that all the trash-talking, threatening and lying is not making you guys more popular.
HAND
Re:It's a problem of attitude... (Score:3, Interesting)
I would say that on the basis of what I've seen lately, the answer should be "no".
The GPL claim is: We don't want people to be able to close our code
The BSD answer to that was: But source can't be closed, our version of it will always remain open
Now that was all fine and good, if you don't mind your code being used for whatever you want, then you don't, and there's nothing to argue about that.
But now we've got this curious development: If the BSD code is then integrated into a GPL product, and patches are released under the GPL, then suddenly that's taking away from BSD. This directly conflicts with the previous statement. By all logic, those people shouldn't care, yet they do.
So why the inconsistency?
BSD Alternative (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, it is and does!! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:For fucks sake, it's forking... (Score:4, Interesting)
It takes more effort to change the licensing in such a way that the BSD camp can't use the code. So it's kind of a slap in the face. I think that's where the animosity comes from, especially since the GPL camp proclaims to be all about freedom and sharing.
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 do not get to strip the license, although you can use and produce binaries with it.
That's the issue: you can't strip the license. By removing the BSD license, the linux people are obliterating the license. As Theo says, licenses are granted to you.