3 ms·

I also hate when projects take BSD/Apache licensed code and change it to GPL. While it seems technically permissible, to me it also muddies the original code’

I also hate when projects take BSD/Apache licensed code and change it to GPL. While it seems technically permissible, to me it also muddies the original code’s licensing as well, especially if not well known. It is also bizarre that someone could take BSD code, make trivial modifications, and now such cannot be sent upstream or used under the original license. I happily call out a surprisingly under-appreciated case of this… We only have KVM virtualization on x86 today because Citrix meticulously developed an x86 instruction emulator (many thousand lines of dense code). The Linux kernel took that BSD code and relicensed it as GPL. Sure, at some point one might argue that later modifications by the Linux developers are significant contribution that makes are unique… If I observe a good change Linux made, it is perhaps now questionable that as a 3rd party I create a PR to push the same change upstream… This is an accidentally evil side of GPL that isn’t talked about. But at least in the early days, it also means one cannot freely use Linux’s copy but can do so from Xen —- even though it is the exact same code!! Licensing also invites a trap where careless developers relicense GPL as BSD, and then a conscientious party unknowingly uses the BSD implementation in a closed source product. The only saving grace is most code is horrible for reuse purposes and it is often easier to either reimplement it (from scratch) or use a well known BSD-licensed gem.

persnickety 3y ago
I don't think you can change the license of existing code at all, unless you're the copyright holder. Best you can do is release someone's code as part of a work under another license. Anyway, > It is also bizarre that someone could take BSD code, make trivial modifications, and now such cannot be sent upstream or used under the original license. That's the case for anyone taking BSD sources and turning it into a closed product, isn't it? Even if you get the BSD-licensed sources, the trivial modification will not be upstreamable. That's kind of the entire point of permissive licenses, as opposed to copyleft, isn't it?
brlewis 3y ago
>It is also bizarre that someone could take BSD code, make trivial modifications, and now such cannot be sent upstream or used under the original license. No it is not bizarre. That is precisely how the BSD license is intended to work. If you want to ensure that changes fall under the original license, then you want GPL.
sillystuff 3y ago
> We only have KVM virtualization on x86 today because Citrix meticulously developed an x86 instruction emulator (many thousand lines of dense code). > ...Linux’s copy but can do so from Xen —- even though it is the exact same code!! Do you have any references for this? I went looking, but couldn't find anything to support your assertions. Neither code re-use/re-licensing nor origin at Citrix. Origin at Citrix appears especially dubious, as KVM was present in linux kernel version 2.6.20, released almost a year before Citrix acquired Xensource. Also, Xen was originally developed at Cambridge University. The only thing I thought both projects shared was their use of Fabrice Bellard's GPLv2 licensed qemu (some parts of qemu are under other licenses, but the main project is GPLv2).

persnickety 3y ago

I don't think you can change the license of existing code at all, unless you're the copyright holder. Best you can do is release someone's code as part of a work under another license. Anyway, > It is also bizarre that someone could take BSD code, make trivial modifications, and now such cannot be sent upstream or used under the original license. That's the case for anyone taking BSD sources and turning it into a closed product, isn't it? Even if you get the BSD-licensed sources, the trivial modification will not be upstreamable. That's kind of the entire point of permissive licenses, as opposed to copyleft, isn't it?

brlewis 3y ago

>It is also bizarre that someone could take BSD code, make trivial modifications, and now such cannot be sent upstream or used under the original license. No it is not bizarre. That is precisely how the BSD license is intended to work. If you want to ensure that changes fall under the original license, then you want GPL.

sillystuff 3y ago

> We only have KVM virtualization on x86 today because Citrix meticulously developed an x86 instruction emulator (many thousand lines of dense code). > ...Linux’s copy but can do so from Xen —- even though it is the exact same code!! Do you have any references for this? I went looking, but couldn't find anything to support your assertions. Neither code re-use/re-licensing nor origin at Citrix. Origin at Citrix appears especially dubious, as KVM was present in linux kernel version 2.6.20, released almost a year before Citrix acquired Xensource. Also, Xen was originally developed at Cambridge University. The only thing I thought both projects shared was their use of Fabrice Bellard's GPLv2 licensed qemu (some parts of qemu are under other licenses, but the main project is GPLv2).