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:No problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Since a lot of people seem to be missing the part of the article beneath the ad:

"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."

Re:No problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Thief! Thief!

Forking

[petrus4]

In every case I've ever heard of, the primary reason why a fork has happened is because the lead of the original project was percieved to be an obnoxious megalomaniac. From what I've read this was true of XFree86, and from what I've been reading if it happens to Gnome, it'll be true there as well. (And yes, I'm privately inclined to believe it was at least partially true in the case of the Emacs/XEmacs fork as well ;-))

It sounds like the leader of the project you were involved with is now attempting to verify this truism by preventing you from copying the parent project's code to your new tree. Tell him that unless he either a) is the original copyright holder, and b) therefore wishes to change the code's license, (in which case he fairly obviously never intended to abide by the GPL in the first place) that he can go and perform an anatomically impossible act with a shovel with your blessing, because as long as the GPL is binding on the project, he won't be able to do anything else.

To RMS' credit, while he might not have been happy about the XEmacs fork (and he wasn't...I've read the email archives on this) but other than claiming Richard Gabriel had shown a "bad spirit" he never explicitly tried to stop it from happening to my knowledge, precisely because he would have known that forking is one of the rights that the GPL specifically grants.

The right to fork is crucial, because it protects against that part of human frailty which causes the behaviour of some of us to degenerate into fascism. If the leader of a project that you've devoted considerable time and effort to for whatever reason suddenly decides to start being a control freak, the right to fork ensures that the effort you've already invested will not go to waste. You can simply copy the project and relocate said copy to your own site/machine, and then continue working on it.

I agree completely that credit should be given in the changelog/wherever else to whoever has worked on the parent code, but for the parent project's lead to try and prevent forking of it if it uses the GPL is completely wrong, IMHO. In the XEmacs situation RMS might have tried to dominate people in spirit, but in practice he was able I think to recognise the necessity of abiding by his own rules.

more then ethical

[D3viL]

Of course useing some code from the fork is ethical. the whole idea of the gpl is to give out the code and let anyone modify it with teh understanding that and modifications can be broght back into the orriginal to improve it. in fact to my understanding you dont' even have to give the patch's writers credit at all. Your going beyond your obligations to give credit to those that deserve it. there is no question in my mind your use of this code is ethical.

No.

[laughingcoyote]

That's the simple answer. No, it is not unethical to use code as per the terms of the license he chose to release it under. (Or had to, but if he has a problem with other people using GPL code, he shouldn't be doing so himself.) Your choice to credit the author, despite his bad behavior, further reinforces that you are acting within both the bounds of the law and ethical standards.

Politely inform him that it is your right to use the code he releases under the terms of that license, just as it is for anyone in compliance with the GPL terms. and that you are going to continue to do so. If he continues as he currently is, just ignore him and continue to do what you're doing. You are not acting unethically just because he says so, you are complying with the terms of the license under which the code is released, as well as good practice of crediting.

Some people are just stuck-up or don't understand that they must accept their own choices. Be polite to this type of person, take the high road, and don't let them suck you down to their level. If you do this, everyone will see them for what they are.