# Can we not do stuff like this?



## m6tt (Dec 26, 2012)

http://www.mobileread.com/forums/showthread.php?t=109401

As I was searching for why my Kindle automounted and sync'd once and then quit, I found this.

I find it very frustrating when 99% of FreeBSD users are good netizens, trying to contribute back code patches and encourage support and some ***hat talks like that to an unpaid project developer.

I assume it's a troll, but as a small(er) userbase, we should do our best to send good impressions


----------



## UNIXgod (Dec 26, 2012)

m6tt said:
			
		

> http://www.mobileread.com/forums/showthread.php?t=109401
> 
> As I was searching for why my Kindle automounted and sync'd once and then quit, I found this.
> 
> ...



That thread had Chuck Haley in it! He called it out on the troll. I'll repost his comment as it's got some BSD history in it! They refer to it at NIH( not invented here)... Generally referenced in the editor wars... Though that thread bottoms out over GPL3 and the BSD license.


> Troll alert!
> 
> Comment: when Bill (Joy) and I wrote ex/vi at Berkeley back in 1975/6-ish, Ken (Thompson) at first refused to let us put it in Unix V6. He thought it was too big and (as he later admitted) not 'geeky' (my word) enough. The Pascal IDE we built in/around vi never was accepted. And you should have heard the comments about emacs.
> 
> Sounds like that sort of opinion is still alive and well. Although Ken would never have used the phrase 'X is for bditches'.


----------



## throAU (Dec 26, 2012)

What an idiot.

News flash: if you're posting on some free software project forum with a trouble ticket, no one cares for licensing discussions.


----------



## frijsdijk (Dec 27, 2012)

That's an idiot for sure. Why bring it up at all? It is an old story ..


----------



## m6tt (Dec 28, 2012)

I guess I just recently have been seeing a lot of FreeBSD vs. Linux stuff lately. It struck a nerve, because a *lot* of Linux folks who haven't had experience with our awesome community also don't understand our license that well. 

Correct me if I am wrong, but as long as the BSD license is jammed into the included copyright file, a GPL project can use and distribute all the BSD code it can get its hands on, including licensing the overall project as GPL. There is no direct license incompatibility, such as CDDL vs GPL. So there is nothing that would be harmful in using a BSD licensed patch for a GPL project, as far as I know.

What struck a nerve for me was instead of being calm and educational, the troll just goes ballistic. I guess I just wanted to climb up on a tiny soapbox and whine about the current internet culture of fan(boy|girl)ism  

The last thing we need are the two biggest *FREE* operating systems slugging it out...


----------



## throAU (Dec 28, 2012)

m6tt said:
			
		

> Correct me if I am wrong, but as long as the BSD license is jammed into the included copyright file, a GPL project can use and distribute all the BSD code it can get its hands on, including licensing the overall project as GPL.



Yes, and this is ironic.

I recall a few months ago, some BSD licensed code was lifted from FreeBSD and re-licensed by a Linux dev as GPL.

In doing so, he ensured that bugfixes, additions, etc to the GPL version could not be contributed back upstream to the BSD source.

Which is ironic, considering the whole premise of the GPL supposed to ensure that you are guaranteed contributions back to the original author.

Re-licensing BSD code as GPL is hypocritical in the extreme.  Whilst it is *permitted *by the BSD license, it smacks of "Well, F**k you!"


----------



## wblock@ (Dec 28, 2012)

I don't think that's correct.  In particular, I don't believe anyone other than the author/license owner can change the license.


----------



## SirDice (Dec 28, 2012)

throAU said:
			
		

> I recall a few months ago, some BSD licensed code was lifted from FreeBSD and re-licensed by a Linux dev as GPL.


I think that was quite a while ago. If it's the same thing that is...

http://kerneltrap.org/OpenBSD/Atheros_Driver_Developments


----------



## ChalkBored (Dec 28, 2012)

wblock@ said:
			
		

> I don't think that's correct.  In particular, I don't believe anyone other than the author/license owner can change the license.



You're not actually changing the license on the code, you're just wrapping a copy of the code, along with the license, in another license. If you managed to pull the code back out of the wrapping, it would still be BSD licensed code. The problem comes when it's stuffed in the GPL'd wrapping, and parts of the BSD code are modified, since those changes are most likely released under the GPL license.


----------

