Slashdot Mirror
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.
The BSD crowd is pissed because people abuse the cruddy license they came up with in the first place and want to throw a tantrum at the linux/gpl/fsf/gnu crowd.
Provide a permissive license and expecting everything to be returned to you is contradictory to the very license you've chose.
First, it's rude. You don't deny a derivative work to the original author. Second, it's ilelgal. You may not file off someone's license just because you disagree with it. A few Linux developers have demonstrated that they're rude scofflaws.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Hey dumbass. It's not stolen if the owner gave it away.
evil is as evil does
The BSD people are full of shit. There I said it. I'm tired of all the politeness GPL defenders show to these people. They don't deserve. The BSD exists for one reason and one reason alone. To get Open Source Code into Closed Source Applications. I'm open minded enough to know that *that* isn't always a bad thing. I understand, for instance, why the theora and vorbis codecs use an apeche license. But most of the time the open source community gets nothing from the BSD that the GPL couldn't offer also. If you call yourself an open source developer you have to explain why we need to give up code to proprietary shops, otherwise the only other reason to go with the BSD is to keep open the opportunity to go proprietary. If you want to go proprietary at least have the decency to admit doing so. Saying choose BSD (-style) because "its more free" shows you are full of shit.
But... the future refused to change.
"They've chosen to deal with the cons in question here through argument, appeal to ethics and persuasion, rather than by legal action, which would have costs they deem unacceptable."
LOL. Becuase legally there is _nothing_ they can do. Waaaaa, i chose the BSD license that let's people do whatever they want to the code, including fork. Apple does it, yet no one is bitching about them. Sun does it. IBM does it. No bitching.
Linux Kernel does it....HOLYF***ING SH**!!!!!!!!!! Stop the press!!!!!!! They are not allowed to do it.
If you don't want people to just take your code and fork it..._don't_ release it under a BSD license. It is that simple.