On the Ethics of a Code Split? 448
McWizard asks: "We've recently had a code split at a project I'm leading. (No name given, as this is a question, not an advertisement campaign). While both projects have done some major design decisions in opposing directions, we've been keeping a close eye on the changelog of the spinoff for small changes that could be used. So, whenever we've found an interesting piece of code (mostly GUI stuff, nothing longer than 20 lines of code), we transferred it to our project and gave credit to the spinoff team in the changelog.
What does Slashdot say on that matter? Is this unethical or are such things fair game?"
"Yesterday, I was contacted by the leader of the spinoff project who told me that he's quiet angry at us for doing that and that it's considered unethical and rude to copy code from the spinoff.
As both projects are under the GPL, we have an opposing opinion on that matter and we've more than once invited him to copy code from our project. Nevertheless he's thinking about obfuscating his changelog and only open the source as packages when he's doing a release, which is, as he says, his right under the GPL."
No problem (Score:5, Interesting)
Legally, there's nothing wrong since both projects are GPL'ed (I presume).
Ethically, I don't see anything wrong with it. In the end, it's your design decisions that are going to make a difference, which is why the code split in the first place. In fact, there's no reason why both projects shouldn't take code from each other; if there are common areas where there's actually no disagreement, this will help to reduce duplication of effort.
Re:No problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No problem (Score:5, Insightful)
The fork can certainly hide its code until releases, but then it's got all the disadvantages of a proprietary software product - it's hard to work on and has no community. Plus when it comes out a little bit of diff and reading will deal with anything of interest. And obfuscate the changelog - as a user would you trust software whose author has made changes unauditable ?
If the fundamental design goals are different then the chances are that the opportunities for sharing will go down over time anyway.
Alan
Isn't that the whole point of the GPL? (Score:3, Interesting)
If I'm understanding this right, someone forked a GPL'd project, but they're now claiming that the original project is being unethical in back-porting changes from the fork? That's crazy! Surely the whole point of the GPL, as opposed to say BSD-style licences, is that if you take GPL'd code you have to give back what you build on it? I don't see how the spin-off project have a leg to stand on, either morally or legally.
On the subject of obfuscation, it seems clear that they only have to give back the "fin
Re:No problem (Score:3, Insightful)
Clean, simple, and unambiguous. Why did we have to muddy the waters by questioning "ethics"?
Re:Doesn't depend; the GPL is clear (Score:3, Interesting)
You can't contribute if the committers aren't interested in your patches and won't put them in CVS. Most of the time this is due to a quality or style issue, but sometimes it's just due to the fact that the committers might have another vision of the project than you do. In a case like that, where you are quite willing and able to
Re:No problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No problem (Score:5, Informative)
It's like a giant orgy of shared code, and (to my knowledge) all of the authors are proud that their code is worth being implemented in other projects. Amazing how well we work together when money isn't involved...
Re:No problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Open source is about sharing work to prevent reinventing of the wheel. Occasionally it is still necessary to re-implement functionality that exists elsewhere, but in general it is more sensible to build upon others work than to duplicate effort.
"Good artists copy. Great artists steal."
time to play the devil's advocate (Score:5, Insightful)
of course everyone here thinks picking code out of the split is a good idea. but... let's consider the flip side for a moment:
why did the code base split in the first place? obviously, because a group of developers in the team felt they had a better vision or method or whatever than the team leads. a code split is only a last resort, so we can probably assume that the developers who went on to form the split put a lot of effort into trying to get their ideas into the original source tree and were unsuccessful.
so, now that the split team has got a project up and running and is writing new code that embodies their vision of the project, they find that the original team who probably rejected at least some of the split team's ideas before the split is now suitably impressed with the results to roll them into the original source tree.
the question the split team may be asking themselves right now is this: if our ideas and code are so hot, why didn't you pay attention to them originally? and, furthermore, if the original team is so impressed with the features of the split project, why don't they put their effort into working on the split instead of the first source tree?
not meant to be flamebait: just trying to consider the motivations and rationales of the split team since no member of that team was given the opportunity to present their opinions or views in the original post.
Re:time to play the devil's advocate (Score:4, Insightful)
That said, the majority of your post seems based on the idea that the original project is using significant pieces of code from the new project -- the post clearly says "changelog of the spinoff for small changes that could be used. So, whenever we've found an interesting piece of code (mostly GUI stuff, nothing longer than 20 lines of code)". Your argument would be completely valid, and I would probably agree with it, if the original project was rolling in the new features that they objected to which resulted in the split in the first place.
Re:time to play the devil's advocate (Score:3, Insightful)
a) work
b) be used by some distribution for some actual purpose
is generally part of getting into the main tree.
the question the split team may be asking themselves right now is this: if our ideas and code are so hot, why didn't you pay attention to them originally?
The answer might be, "Because before you implemented these ideas we weren't su
Re:No problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Some developers don't want their code taken and "locked" away in some proprietary app, while others don't care. I happen to go along with the GPL camp for the most part. If I give my time and effort to a community project, I don't want someone to be able to take that effort away and not have to give back to that community. Note that the GPL and people who believe in the GPL don't care about profits. If you can take a GPL app (like MySQL) and make money, so be it. Just don't try to take the code away.
The GPL is all about the code and the end-user rights to the code. Other licensees like the MPL, BSD, etc are not about the code or the rights of others with the code. The MPL and BSD allow you to take the code and derive from it and keep that derived code locked away. Again, some people feel that is OK and others don't. It all comes down to where you stand on that issue. I personally think both sides have good points, I just favor the GPL/LGPL for a stronger community. IMO, the GPL/LGPL foster sharing of knowledge better then the other OSS licenses. And to me, sharing of knowledge is the most important thing.
Re:No problem (Score:3, Interesting)
You know, I'm a developer, and when I choose a license, it has never had anything at all to do with belief. Instead, it has to do with how I see one particular project and how I want it to be used. If I don't mind it being used as a code repository for proprietary software to pull from, I throw it under the BSD license or something like it. If I want people who use it to always have the freedom that source code allows, then I put
Re:No problem (Score:5, Funny)
[/sarcasm]
Re:No problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No problem (Score:5, Insightful)
If he starts to obfuscate everything, then he'll likely end up killing his fork anyway.
Take the high road, continue to use the best available resources (even his code) and document and give credit to the appropriate people.
Re:No problem (Score:5, Insightful)
A fork from a GPL'd project is subject to the GPL. RTFGPL section 2.b for the specifics.
If the forker starts obfuscating his code, he is locking in his clients as effectively as if he closed the source. From what I hear so far, it looks like the fork happened because somebody got into a dick-size-war and started to lose. Now, he is trying to make his project better by attempting to sabotage your project. While he is not circumventing the letter of the GPL, he is violating its spirit by forsaking cooperation for his own glory.
Aside from the fact that he is, in effect, telling his users (if any are left) that he no longer gives a fuck about them, there is still nothing to prevent you from downloading the full source and running a diff to see what he's done.
To summarize: What you are doing is not merely ethical but encouraged by the spirit of Open Source. What the forker is doing is unethical, unsportsmanlike, and contrary to the spirit of Open Source. If he's true to the pattern of the Wounded Ego, he will soon threaten some sort of legal action against you. Ignore him. At this point, he has about as much credibility as SCO.
idea and a limerick (Score:5, Funny)
I'd suggest replying to the guy with a limerick:
Re:idea and a limerick (Score:3, Funny)
His etiquette complaints they did torque us
and you get the rhyme back.
Re:No problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No problem (Score:3, Informative)
Were I in your position, I'd just stop looking at his project. Not because ethics demand it, but because I wouldn't want to deal with someone who acted as you describe him as acting.
Did the forker really gripe? (Score:4, Insightful)
If he starts to obfuscate everything, then he'll likely end up killing his fork anyway.
I see a lot of posts here that are assuming that the question came up because the person who forked the code is griping. Though the parent posting here doesn't explicitly say that, it is the first moderated-into-default-visibility where that possibility is implied. Hence I have chosen it for my reply.
The original posting doesn't claim that there ever was any gripe. It is phrased as a simple question, by someone who is just concerned, himself, about possible ethical issues.
Maybe it DID come up because there was a gripe. But let's assume not unless/until the the article author or someone else in the know says otherwise.
Having said that, I'll now chime in on the original question.
A number of other posters have already pointed out that due to the open license (clearly implied by the circumstances) it's squeaky-clean legal to backport any good pieces. And both because that's the intent of open licenses and because the fork essentially lifted the whole project, it's also fair. I concur with both points.
Additionally, from a practical standpoint, backporting the good stuff from the fork to the main reduces the divergence (and reduces the total effort). This is good for both prongs: It makes it easier for someone familiar with one to work with, or work on, the other. And it simplifies matters if the two forks are ever to be remerged into a single project. These two argue for merging, not just where improvements or bug fixes are major, but even if the improvement is minor, cosmetic, or even when it makes an arbitrary choice among several roughly equal alternatives.
So feel free to merge whenever it makes any sense at all for your branch of the tree.
Re:Did the forker really gripe? (Score:5, Informative)
Forks are quite common (Score:5, Interesting)
I've seen this happen in pretty important chunks of code - even gcc - which is pretty sad.
As a maintainer for a file system, I try to treat people as "customers". Sure, unless they're paying, they don't have any legal rights, but there is still some moral obligation to serve. I try to add the features that people want without breaking the design goals etc. I'm sure this is easier with a file system which is very deeply buried than with a userpsace program where everybody has a beef about itty-bitty features.
Re:Forks are quite common (Score:4, Insightful)
As a maintainer for a file system, I try to treat people as "customers". Sure, unless they're paying, they don't have any legal rights, but there is still some moral obligation to serve.
According to *my* EULAs, I don't have any legal rights even when I *am* paying.
Re:Forks are quite common (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Forks are quite common (Score:5, Interesting)
And it was more than just the cygnus people, it was also IBM and the fortran maintainer and other people too (yes IBM was involved with GCC before 1999) who founded EGCS, see about some of the history of EGCS project and GCC.
SSP is also called propolice. The writter of it submitted it against a release branch which was the main reason why it got rejected and it was too big to review.
The licence is king (Score:5, Insightful)
Open Source and Free Software work so well because no matter what differing motivations and desires different people have we all can all come together with a given licence as a basis for a sort of social contract.
If a party is trying to restrict what the licence in question normally allows then it is they that is being unethical.
Re:The licence is king (Score:3, Insightful)
He doesn't get it, does he (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree (Score:5, Insightful)
My two step plan for dealing with the problem.
Step 1:
Politely and calmly explain it to him that as both code bases are GPL'd it's perfectly legal to do what you're doing. Also point out that he's benefitted from this arrangement by not having to recode everything to get the spin-off off the ground and doing what he's planning on doing will harm the spin-off.
Step 2:
If step 1 doesn't solve the problem then tell him to go fuck himself and use the code anyway.
The only problem is that he's upset. (Score:5, Insightful)
On a personal and social footing, however, if you've got an angry 'contributor' then you've got a problem on your hands. If it gets to the point where he's obfuscating his change logs, it's going to hurt his project and the bad blood can't do you any good.
I'm guessing that he's upset about something else to do with the split (i.e. he may feel seriously unacknowledged for the work that he put into the project pre-split or dissed as a side-effect or something like that), and seeing 'his' code being 'lifted' into your fork is just re-opening old wounds for him.
I think you're gonna have to do something to diagnose and heal that old wound, or the whole thing's just gonna end up an infected stinky mess.
losing sleep? (Score:5, Insightful)
Spirit of the GPL (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Spirit of the GPL (Score:3, Informative)
Not just GPL I would say. It is the spirit of Open Source. Take the BSD's for example. They not only think that code sharing between projects is fine, they also pay extra attention to portability - to make code sharing easier (and that's not just NetBSD, I've seen changelogs of commits in FreeBSD that's main purpose was to make the code more portable across BSD's).
I good example is ehci (usb 2.0 support) that was written by FreeBSD devs, and then maintainer abandoned it.
Re:Spirit of the GPL (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Spirit of the GPL (Score:5, Insightful)
In addition to the excellent above points, obfuscating the changelog also hurts his project. The true foundation of open source is the ability for Joe Coder to submit patches and additions to the project. He will limit others abilities and/or willingness to commit code to his project.
The unfortunate aspect of an Ask Slashdot like this is we don't know the other developer's story. The developer has probably missed the point of open source and he's might even be a complete jackass but ultimately he's not here to defend himself. He may have some points missed by the author by mere nature of author's own subjectivity.
That said, I'd keep on keepin' on. You are well within your rights to use code as long as it's credited. Furthermore, I think it's ethical and in keeping with the spirit of the GPL and open source culture to apply code that makes your application better. The point is to collaborate and make software that Sucks Less.
Released under the GPL (Score:5, Insightful)
The other developer obviously does not understand the GPL. Of course you can use the code, just as long as you preserved the copyright notice.
Use & share the code - thats the whole point of the GPL anyway.
Re:On the Ethics of a Code Split? (Score:5, Insightful)
If the idiot who forked from you really wants to go closed source with it, he's going to have to change the license, and I bet most of that code was written by people on your side of the camp. I wish him lots of luck getting them to agree to license it to him under closed terms. If he just wants to close the CVS repository, or obscure the changelog, that's up to him, and the GPL permits this, but that would seriously hurt his fork, as people would be far less willing to get involved with it.
So in short, it's not at all unethical. But is it rude?
Again, I'm going to say no. It is, after all, a GPL project. You have to expect your code is going to wind up reused in other GPL projects sooner or later. That's a sign that you're writing good code. He should be flattered, not offended.
In the long term, the politics are likely going to wind up killing one or both projects, so I'd suggest you try to keep the moral high ground, as it were, and let this guy run his fork into the ground. It sounds like he's well on his way there already.
Re: When code is GPL'ed... (Score:2, Informative)
That's the whole idea.
Also, copying bits from one GPL program to another GPL program is not out of the ordinary. This is a constant in open source software.
To minimize confusion, every developer should probably read (and understand) the GPL.
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html [gnu.org]
"You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright not
Re:On the Ethics of a Code Split? (Score:2)
The guy obviously is distributing; he's running a public CVS server and making public releases every so often. Each of those is distribution under the GPL. But your point deserves to be modded up; people sometimes forget that you don't have to distribute at all.
Does their license allow for using their code? (Score:5, Insightful)
Never let your ego stand in the way of improving the software.
Sounds like a... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Sounds like a... (Score:2)
Re:Sounds like a... (Score:2)
Re:Sounds like a... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Sounds like a... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Sounds like a... (Score:3, Insightful)
Might be a chance to get the other side of the story?
Live by the GPL... (Score:5, Insightful)
You're fine. If they didnt want to share, they shouldn't have stayed with the GPL.
At least you're giving credit, which is a pile more then most bother to do.
Re:Live by the GPL... (Score:3, Insightful)
I think they're pretty much stuck with the GPL unless they want to re-write anything that doesn't belong to them.
Isn't that the idea? (Score:4, Insightful)
As long as you give credit and don't try to pass it off as your own, I don't see the problem... unless you are selling this product, in which case it's a tricky situation. Maybe take the idea and give credit but rewrite the code your own way?
If you shared code originally, what's wrong with sharing it now?
GPL is GPL (Score:2)
There must be some bad blood for him to say something is under the GPL, except for you.
He's a twit (Score:5, Informative)
He's a twit. How did he get his code base in the first place? By copying it, under GPL, from a community of people who wrote it and released it.
They didn't have veto power over others using their code and neither does he.
Goes with the territory. (Score:4, Interesting)
If he wants to do this and not share with everyone, he needs to start over with his own commercial implementation from scratch. Until he does, just tell him to suck down a nice big mug of STFU.
As ethical in return.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I see both as being perfectly fine, but if they're going to get angry about it, that's just hypocracy on their part. (At least that's what it looks like without reading their side of the story.)
It's fair game (Score:3, Insightful)
Do we believe in "open source", or not? (Score:3, Insightful)
If you believe that the spinoff developers really adher to the principles embodied in their license, not only is it okay to borrow, they should encourage it.
It's as simple as that.
You're in the right (Score:2)
If he doesn't want you to use his code, he shouldn't license his additions under the GPL, whereupon you can sue him into the ground.
Since he is licensing it under the GPL (as he must, since the original codebase is GPL), you should gently remind him of that fact.
I think.. (Score:3, Insightful)
What is it about coding that draws these types? Was it being beaten up in school, and now they're nuts about the one thing they're good at?
Re:I think.. (Score:5, Insightful)
You could argue that I could blame those changes on the developer who checked them in, pull cvs logs etc etc...but when you're dealing with non technical bosses, you just look like you're trying to pass the buck, and they certainly don't understand the difference between lines 20-25 two days ago vs 25-29 now and why that broke things.
So, code nazi-ism can be a self preservation method as well as being ego driven.
Re:I think.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I think.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, because when someone changes your code they always make a point of updating the comments. The 'non-technical boss' mentioned in the grandparent is unlikely to know the difference . .
I'm lucky in that I'm working in a two man dev team, and we've got a good working relationship. When I'm about to commit a change to his code to Subversion I point it out to him (he's the senior dev, knows his shit, and I
Re:I think.. (Score:3, Interesting)
A while back there was a particular developer; let's just call her M, who would go utterly BALLISTIC if anyone tried to port her code from one TinyMUCK system to another. Even though she wasn't being paid for the work, s
It doesn't matter... (Score:5, Interesting)
Can you imagine human history without being able to use other people's good ideas? I mean even if it's not derived? "I'm sorry, you can't have that steam train - I represent the estate of the ancient greeks, and we have a patent on the steam engine."
Having said all that, accreditation is nice - aknowledge the work that people have done, it's cool that you are doing this. This is what polite people in academia do - just recognise the derivation of the idea, then use it with what you're doing.
T
Of course it's ethical (Score:2)
Code split? (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, that already happened.
If you have a good reason, just split the code - emacs survived it, XFree86 survived it.
Re:Code split? (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't understand his problem. (Score:5, Interesting)
Arguably, it might have been more polically aware to ask permission before using the code, but I'd say the more serious problem is that the leader of the spinoff doesn't appear to fully understand the concept of the GPL. Anybody can take a project and expand on it. That code can, in turn, be added to any other project. It's all about sharing and showing your stuff, so someone using your code should be taken as a compliment, not theft.
Maybe you could try and talk to him and ask why this is a problem; perhaps it's a matter that can be settled. In any case I wouldn't borrow any more of their code until the matter is cleared up since that would only escalate the feud.
Who cares? (Score:2, Funny)
Of course if you guys share so much code why not just make a 3rd library of the shared code and be done with? E.g. take the intersection of your projects and make that a new library. That way you can focus on your particular tweaks and still be happy.
Of course I can come up with these cool ideas because I'm a forking genious.
Tom
As a developer... (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it ethical? Hell, yes! The whole idea of Open Source is to produce the best damn code possible. If it weren't, there'd be no point. It'd just be an ego-trip and flag-waving exhibition. Sure, some projects are just that, and some developers are only concerned with themselves. Such projects and such people rarely last, either in open or closed-source environments. When all you can see is yourself, you're obstructing the view of any goal you might want to reach.
You cut bits out & give them credit. They do the same with what you produce. In the end, the fork will either produce two completely different products that were initially entangled, or will re-merge when it's finally understood that the different people were viewing the same problem, only from different viewpoints and/or with a focus on some specific part of it.
For what it's worth, I say go for it. The other person has neither ethical nor legal ground to stand on, if it's GPL, LGPL or BSD.
Huh? (Score:3, Interesting)
How is it unethical? (Score:2)
First off... (Score:2, Funny)
Project is MegaMek (Score:3, Interesting)
Hmmm (Score:3, Funny)
How is it unethical? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is all about someone's ego. Squash it or not as you see fit.
In other words, do *you* care what they think of your use of their code. In this situation, that is about all that really matters.
Besides the ethics (Score:3, Interesting)
a) Post minor bug fixes between code to their bug notification system. Prove that you have good faith and are not sabotaging their ability to compete, you have a difference in opinion about methods but you are working on the same goal.
b) Post a request for developers to cross post any bug fixes into your system to the list. Request that the project sponsor post this on their page. (Sounds like they will decline but you should be polite and officially ask).
There is no real ethical debate here. The reason for the fork is apparent and ANY code changes that makes the project a better one is for the common good. Is is anoying when the competition "stands upon the shoulder of giants", hell yes.
Ego and programming do not mix and is the biggest problem with most developers.
Um? (Score:2)
On Obfuscation and Open Source (Score:5, Informative)
This is laid out in the open source definition [opensource.org], of which the GPL fits, which explicitly forbids obfuscated source.
Whether and how this applies to changelogs is another matter, since those could be interpreted as not being part of the source.
However, if the changelog is important for understanding the source, then I would interpret the GPL as regarding the changelog as part of the source code for the project, and therefore subject to the redistribution clause of the GPL.
Unethical? What?! (Score:3, Insightful)
Rude? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sick and tired of these fairweather open source developers. They're all for it when it means they can get a jumpstart on their project using freely available code and not have to ask permission. They're all for it when it means they look at what others have done for inspiration. They're all for it when it means they can attract more developers with the promise that their code won't be locked away to wither and rot so long as someone, anyone is interested in it. But once someone starts using it in a manner they don't approve of, they're up in arms.
Hey, that's the GPL. If it's all his code, he can stop releasing it under the GPL and use a more restrictive license. Otherwise, tell that arrogant bastard he needs to look down on all the GPL shoulders he's standing on and rethink his position.
Politics (Score:3, Insightful)
Good - evolution comes from competition, both sides of the fork are stronger thereby - it's one of the several reasons open source produces better code.
But he left the main fork because he didn't *like* the way they were running things, and then they have the sheer temerity to use *his* code. Them B@st@rds!
Which leaves you in the position of having to choose whether or not to ignore the spirit and letter of the GPL, leaving him his exclusive code, but preserve peace between the forks, or respectfully disagree, point out that he has the same option available to him, and use what you find useful, or even get nasty and tell him that he can keep his source secret, but needs to remove the GPL'd code from his project.
Those are the options I see for you. Unfortunately, which of those you pursue is a poltical decision you need to make, not an ethical or legal one, so you need to talk to your base, not slashdot.
That said - I would go to option two - respectfully disagree and exercise your rights, going to option three if he tries to make it difficult to do so, but I'm a very polite hardass when it comes to someone trying to infringe my rights. Your political situation may not have the stability to do so.
But it doesn't really sound like the open source community is ready to tale up arms on his behalf, so at least that part of your equation is answered -
That's what the GPL is for (Score:3, Insightful)
As long as you're giving due credit where credit is due (technically not required by the GPL, but I would consider it only honorable), then you're in the right. If the other guy doesn't like it, then his beef is with the way Free Software works in the fist place, not with you specifically.
Don't keep the conflict a secret (Score:3, Insightful)
You shouldn't hide this problem from your userbase or the other contributing developers. It will be worse for you and your project in the end if you don't go public.
Similar thing happened to my project... (Score:3, Interesting)
We did incorporate a lot of SINS stuff back into ShowEQ, because I did believe some of the directions that SINS headed in were good, but the overall direction I did not believe was what was needed for the community. However, the code was not a drop in replacement into ShowEQ for current fuctions (or to add new functionality, etc...) so we used the SINS code as a starting point and wrote the SEQ code with SINS as a base idea.
Regardless, the point is that Open Source and GPL are meant to do exactly this. There is _NOTHING_ unethical/immoral about taking bits and pieces of code from other projects and using them in your own. That's exactly what SHOULD be happening. The maintainer of SINS contacted me about using some of the code/ideas from SINS and asked me to give him credit in ShowEQ, which I had neglected to do since we didn't take the code directly and drop it in to the SEQ codebase... but I agreed that giving SINS credit within SEQ was the right thing to do... so in your case, I would definitely attribute portions of the code to the other guys project, even thank him. But there is certainly nothing what so ever immoral about what you are doing with GPL code.
Whoever the guy is that said that is the immoral asshole for even suggesting that... especially if he is the one that forked the code base to begin with and is using other peoples code himself.
Reverse the question. (Score:3, Insightful)
Go for it!
J.
There are other concerns than legal and ethical... (Score:3, Insightful)
However, this misses another point which is also very important, namely how to create an athmosphere of cooperation (or at least peaceful coexistence), which will benefit both of you. Or more specifically in this case, how to teach the other guy the value of sharing.
If you say "fuck you, the GPL gives me the right to copy your code!", you can be pretty sure he will do his best to obstruct your work, and won't release any code again under the GPL (or any other free software license) when given a choice.
And given that he actually does write code worth of copying, that would be a loss for the community.
If you can give the impresion that you respect his wishes, but hope that you can find an arrangement so that you can incorporate his excellent work in a way he doesn't find unfair (maybe after an official release), and if there is any of your humble work he might find of use, you would be flattered to help make it accesible to him, and are there any other ways you could cooperate...
The instinct of most of us is to stand proudly on our rights, but often better results are achieved by looking at what you really want to achieve. Is being "right" really your end goal?
Share the Code! (Score:3, Interesting)
Me too! (Score:3, Informative)
To me, this is the whole point of the GPL. The end result is a better piece of software for the user, and that has to be good.
If somebody decides that your code is good enough to "steal" (in the GPL way), you should feel honoured, not angry!
Not only is it ethical... (Score:3, Insightful)
Not only is it ethical to copy back the code; this whole community thing of having other people contribute directly or indirectly to your code, is *the point* of GPLing it. NOT allowing others to do this would be unethical.
Here's to the spinoffers: don't be a bunch of childish hypocrits. By making a spinoff of an existing project you benefited from the code of others, now give back something and let them benefit from your code.
This has happened before... (Score:3, Insightful)
At least in some of those cases it had merit because they are competing for developers, public support, financing, brand recognition etc. etc. But this looks more like a good old personal disagreement.
His project will not be lessened by you taking his improvements. If he feels you're leeching off his project (i.e. providing nothing in return), that is his own fault for not using any of the possibilities the OSS licencing provides.
There's nothing wrong or unethical with not wanting others to use your code. But you can't eat your cake and have it too. He took the GPL code, and he's bound by the GPL. If he wishes the licence was different, he should not be blaming his mistakes (basing his fork on a GPL project) on you. Who put a gun to his head and forced him to release it under the GPL? Only himself, by making it part of a GPL project.
Kjella
Re:SlashEthics (Score:2, Funny)
Re:hm (Score:2)
Ethics are pointless too much grey area.
Re:hm (Score:5, Insightful)
If the guy doesn;t want to allow you to use his code, he shouldn't have used your code in the first place. What strikes me as particularly unethical here is that he used the common code base but did not want to return the favor, despite the fact that this use was dependent on such permission (the GPL). So in the end, this guy (the one who doesn't want to share his code) is essentially stealing by his own account and by his own standards. This is unethical by any reasonable standard.
Again I think it is appropriate to use whatever code you want provided that you have legal permission to do so. I don't see any ethical issues because reciprocity exists.
Re:I just love an ethics war in the evening... (Score:2, Insightful)
In a code split, stuff gets split 100-100.
Commercial? (Score:2)
And here we have ... (Score:5, Informative)
http://sourceforge.net/projects/megameknet/ [sourceforge.net]
and in the blue corner urgru with mekwars:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/mekwars/ [sourceforge.net]
Is this what its all about?
Re:And here we have ... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I remeber when (Score:4, Interesting)