On the Ethics of a Code Split?

McWizard asks: "We've recently had a code split at a project I'm leading. (No name given, as this is a question, not an advertisement campaign). While both projects have done some major design decisions in opposing directions, we've been keeping a close eye on the changelog of the spinoff for small changes that could be used. So, whenever we've found an interesting piece of code (mostly GUI stuff, nothing longer than 20 lines of code), we transferred it to our project and gave credit to the spinoff team in the changelog. What does Slashdot say on that matter? Is this unethical or are such things fair game?" "Yesterday, I was contacted by the leader of the spinoff project who told me that he's quiet angry at us for doing that and that it's considered unethical and rude to copy code from the spinoff. As both projects are under the GPL, we have an opposing opinion on that matter and we've more than once invited him to copy code from our project. Nevertheless he's thinking about obfuscating his changelog and only open the source as packages when he's doing a release, which is, as he says, his right under the GPL."

Comments

Re:On Obfuscation and Open Source

[falstaff]

Rules out a lot of perl code that is GPL.

Re:No problem

[greenrd]

Actually, the provision of some sort of Changelog (either separately or in individual source files) is a compulsory requirement of the GPL.

Re:No problem

[YE]

Depends on whether both teams are more interested in politics or good software...

If they weren't into politics, they'd choose a less politically-laden license than the GPL.

Re:No problem

[bconway]

It's sad that so many people think that just because you can do something, that makes it ethical. You are what's wrong with America.