4 ms·

So when a GPL2-licensed project takes code from a BSD-licensed project and makes a derivative work based on that, shouldn't those developers submit a copy of th

So when a GPL2-licensed project takes code from a BSD-licensed project and makes a derivative work based on that, shouldn't those developers submit a copy of the derivative work back to the BSD-licensed project as well, just to be fair?

jhall1468 8y ago
There's no obligation to submit the work, if someone wants to patch in their implementation they can, but BSD doesn't obligate you to.
- smallnamespace 8y ago
  To be clear, the obligation on source code availability falls upon the person using (creative a derivative work out of) other GPL'd code.
pseudalopex 8y ago
Why would it be fair to create a proprietary fork but not a copyleft fork?
- detaro 8y ago
  It's certainly appreciated if you submit back code from your proprietary fork too.
  - pseudalopex 8y ago
    Contributions are appreciated, but no one would expect you to donate the whole work "just to be fair".
shp0ngle 8y ago
I never understood this sentiment. If you care about people giving changed code back to you, you use GPL. That's what it's for. If you use BSD, you specifically say "I don't care what you do with the code". If you want forks to give code back, use GPL.
- finnthehuman 8y ago
  Yes, but if you've chosen GPL, it suggests you care that open source project's ability to get changes back. And code can only cross the barrier between BSD and GPL in one direction. Wouldn't it therefore be polite and align with a position on developers getting changes back to make the changes available to upstream even though you're not legally obligated to? I think it makes sense to do that upstreamable work upstream. Unless the interest in GPL-style is less about getting changes back and more about keeping your work out of any closed source products.
  - djsumdog 8y ago
    It depends on your reasoning around the GPL and using it. It gets into the whole "permissive" vs "restrictive" debate and how people in both camps flip those terms around. I can see how, if I were a big GPL/FSF/Stallman person, I'd like to ensure everything I derive will always have future derivations be open source, even if they came from BSD roots. In that philosophy, you're almost "upgrading" the license, where the BSD/MIT/Apache folks might view it as a "downgrade".
    - LukeShu 8y ago
      As a GPL/FSF/Stallman person: That's exactly it. That said, I'll still usually try to contribute it back upstream under the original license; especially if I expect to be continuing to pull code from them. I think it's worth it to maintain good-will with the upstream devs, and to reduce my burden of maintaining the patches/merging new changes.
    - fjsolwmv 8y ago
      BSD doesn't view downstream GPL as a downgrade. BSD philosophy is that they don't care about how consumers use the software. If BSD philosophy cared about downstream licensing, they would be GPL philosophy!
  - Y_Y 8y ago
    The changes are available upstream, just not under the BSD.
eklitzke 8y ago
That is simply not practical for anything except toy projects due to the complexity it adds, and is rarely necessary anyway. The most common case is a GPL project importing BSD licensed code with minimal adaptions, e.g. just enough to integrate the code. The authors of BSD-licensed code are clearly comfortable with people adapting the code for proprietary purposes without submitting their changes, so there shouldn't really be a problem with copyleft projects doing the same. And if the authors feel otherwise, they should use a copyleft license themselves (perhaps the LGPL in a situation like this).
badsectoracula 8y ago
I don't see why, GPL doesn't require you to submit your modified GPL code back to the project, it only requires you to make the code available to others. All GPL cares about is keeping the code available and if a GPL project uses some code from a BSD-licensed project, it also makes that BSD-licensed code available as part of the GPL project (of course the entire project is now GPL, but in theory if you can rip out the BSD code without any GPL bits or modifications, you can use it under the BSD license).
parvenu74 8y ago
Would someone please tell me what is so offensive about this question?
- DoreenMichele 8y ago
  It doesn't appear flagged, just downvoted. Some people use downvotes to express disagreement. Without it being flagged to death, I would not assume it is offensive. I would only assume some people don't agree.
  - parvenu74 8y ago
    I asked a question. Where is the subject matter for "disagreeing with sentiment"? It's not like I asked an RTFM question; I'm curious if, like in the case of the story in question, when code is taken from a BSD-licensed project, if derivative work is made from it if the coders also contribute those changes back to the BSD-licensed project since there is no legal way for them to get the derivatives otherwise.
    - DoreenMichele 8y ago
      Where is the subject matter for "disagreeing with sentiment"? shouldn't those developers submit a copy of the derivative work back to the BSD-licensed project as well, just to be fair? Downvote could = "no, I don't agree"
- throwaway2048 8y ago
  Its the product of a thousand flamewars, nobody is interested in seeing a big fight about it for the 999th time.

jhall1468 8y ago

There's no obligation to submit the work, if someone wants to patch in their implementation they can, but BSD doesn't obligate you to.

smallnamespace 8y ago
To be clear, the obligation on source code availability falls upon the person using (creative a derivative work out of) other GPL'd code.

pseudalopex 8y ago

Why would it be fair to create a proprietary fork but not a copyleft fork?

detaro 8y ago
It's certainly appreciated if you submit back code from your proprietary fork too.
- pseudalopex 8y ago
  Contributions are appreciated, but no one would expect you to donate the whole work "just to be fair".

shp0ngle 8y ago

I never understood this sentiment. If you care about people giving changed code back to you, you use GPL. That's what it's for. If you use BSD, you specifically say "I don't care what you do with the code". If you want forks to give code back, use GPL.

finnthehuman 8y ago
Yes, but if you've chosen GPL, it suggests you care that open source project's ability to get changes back. And code can only cross the barrier between BSD and GPL in one direction. Wouldn't it therefore be polite and align with a position on developers getting changes back to make the changes available to upstream even though you're not legally obligated to? I think it makes sense to do that upstreamable work upstream. Unless the interest in GPL-style is less about getting changes back and more about keeping your work out of any closed source products.
- djsumdog 8y ago
  It depends on your reasoning around the GPL and using it. It gets into the whole "permissive" vs "restrictive" debate and how people in both camps flip those terms around. I can see how, if I were a big GPL/FSF/Stallman person, I'd like to ensure everything I derive will always have future derivations be open source, even if they came from BSD roots. In that philosophy, you're almost "upgrading" the license, where the BSD/MIT/Apache folks might view it as a "downgrade".
  - LukeShu 8y ago
    As a GPL/FSF/Stallman person: That's exactly it. That said, I'll still usually try to contribute it back upstream under the original license; especially if I expect to be continuing to pull code from them. I think it's worth it to maintain good-will with the upstream devs, and to reduce my burden of maintaining the patches/merging new changes.
  - fjsolwmv 8y ago
    BSD doesn't view downstream GPL as a downgrade. BSD philosophy is that they don't care about how consumers use the software. If BSD philosophy cared about downstream licensing, they would be GPL philosophy!
- Y_Y 8y ago
  The changes are available upstream, just not under the BSD.

eklitzke 8y ago

That is simply not practical for anything except toy projects due to the complexity it adds, and is rarely necessary anyway. The most common case is a GPL project importing BSD licensed code with minimal adaptions, e.g. just enough to integrate the code. The authors of BSD-licensed code are clearly comfortable with people adapting the code for proprietary purposes without submitting their changes, so there shouldn't really be a problem with copyleft projects doing the same. And if the authors feel otherwise, they should use a copyleft license themselves (perhaps the LGPL in a situation like this).

badsectoracula 8y ago

I don't see why, GPL doesn't require you to submit your modified GPL code back to the project, it only requires you to make the code available to others. All GPL cares about is keeping the code available and if a GPL project uses some code from a BSD-licensed project, it also makes that BSD-licensed code available as part of the GPL project (of course the entire project is now GPL, but in theory if you can rip out the BSD code without any GPL bits or modifications, you can use it under the BSD license).

parvenu74 8y ago

Would someone please tell me what is so offensive about this question?

DoreenMichele 8y ago
It doesn't appear flagged, just downvoted. Some people use downvotes to express disagreement. Without it being flagged to death, I would not assume it is offensive. I would only assume some people don't agree.
- parvenu74 8y ago
  I asked a question. Where is the subject matter for "disagreeing with sentiment"? It's not like I asked an RTFM question; I'm curious if, like in the case of the story in question, when code is taken from a BSD-licensed project, if derivative work is made from it if the coders also contribute those changes back to the BSD-licensed project since there is no legal way for them to get the derivatives otherwise.
  - DoreenMichele 8y ago
    Where is the subject matter for "disagreeing with sentiment"? shouldn't those developers submit a copy of the derivative work back to the BSD-licensed project as well, just to be fair? Downvote could = "no, I don't agree"
throwaway2048 8y ago
Its the product of a thousand flamewars, nobody is interested in seeing a big fight about it for the 999th time.