4 ms·
The point I think Theo is trying to make is in the open source world you simply have to expect that people will take code - put it under a different licence and
by s_dev 11y ago
The point I think Theo is trying to make is in the open source world you simply have to expect that people will take code - put it under a different licence and modify it - restricting their ability to take back the modified code into OpenBSD.
Typically OSS licences allow and tolerate "selfish" behaviour. I don't think I or he needs to back up this claim with examples.
- gillianseed 11y ago>that people will take code - put it under a different licence and modify it Ok, although the 'take code and put it under a different license' is untrue, you can't re-license code unless you are the copyright owner, I gather that he means someone making modifications/enhancements and placing them under a license which OpenBSD can't use while remaining fully BSD licensed.
- pakled_engineer 11y agoThis happened when Apple adopted pf they added a few enhancements of their own but wrapped them in Apple's license so pf maintainers could not add the changes back into upstream pf.
- yellowapple 11y agoThis also happened with Linux's Atheros drivers (which were derived from OpenBSD, but modifications were published under the GPL instead of the BSD or ISC licenses; Theo argued that doing so was actually a violation of the BSD license (apparently they were stripping out the BSD license in the actual source files? I'm fuzzy on the details)). I don't remember what the outcome was.