10 ms·

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

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.
- fjsolwmv 8y ago
  That's not upstream. That's downstream to a (hypothetical) GPL fork, which is equivalent to the first downstairs GPL project from the first place.

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.

fjsolwmv 8y ago
That's not upstream. That's downstream to a (hypothetical) GPL fork, which is equivalent to the first downstairs GPL project from the first place.