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

The BSD is full of shit.

[Requiem18th]

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.