4 ms·
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 te
by 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 agoAs 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 agoBSD 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!