GPL Hindering Two-Way Code Sharing?

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.

Comments

BSD

[someone1234]

BSD is a way of giving up control on your code.
Why would anyone trust code on people who cannot even keep on to their own?
It is like lending money to a man who then throws it all across the street.
If i wanted to throw money all around, i would do it myself.
Actually, i would support BSD in a world where there is only GPL and BSD licensed code.
But until that world comes, BSD just hinders freedom.

Two words! JELLO WRESTLING!

[Chas]

If nothing else, it'll be a bit more entertaining than the stupid little bitchslap contest that's going back and forth now.

Personally, I don't see what the problem is.

If the BSD guys don't like the license provisions placed on them by the GPL then DON'T USE THE GPL CODE IN FUTURE RELEASES OF YOUR TREE!

Plain and simple. It's then up to the GPL code provider to continue retrofitting their patches to your updates, or fork.

And, either way, they need to retain the BSD license notices.

I don't see why one would NOT have a problem with someone taking the code for a commercial product and rendering it binary-only, yet it's such a huge EEEEEVIL "inhuman" (thanks for that useless bit of idiotic irrelevancy Theo) thing for an open-source license to use the code, retain the license for your portions, and place a separate license on theirs.

Remember, BSD doesn't give you complete control over what someone does with your code. It merely tell them that the licensing requirements must be adhered to.

And, as for the mental cripples who think they can use the GPL as a superceding license to virally GPL blocks of BSD code.

BZZZT!

If you want a particular function, app, service, etc to be completely GPL, WRITE THE FUCKING THING YOURSELF!

Stop trying to use the GPL as leverage in stealing code from others. You'd hate it if it were done to you, and is completely anathema to the intent and wording of the GPL. So stop it you lazy bastards.

What do you expect from a bunch of communists?

[ZWithaPGGB]

It's always about how everyone contributes according to their ability, but the Politburo gets according to their greed.

Is anyone surprised at yet more socialist hypocrisy? Socialism is incompatible with human nature, so of course it gets abused.
> I'm no fan of MS, but at least they get that the profit motive is basic human nature. Channeling it, as opposed to denying it, works better. In the latter case, the altruists get abused by those who pretend to play the game, but take control for their own benefit.

What the GPL fans miss is that they are required to dual license the resulting code. That bugs them, because they want a world in which all software has to be GPL. So they ignore the BSD license, on the same basis as corps ignore the GPL "So sue me".