>Er, I think you have misread jms222's comment. He's suggesting that a lot of GNU'd code was inspired by BSD'd code which, as BSD is more permissive, is probably fine.
No, no, no, no AND NO ?
1. BSD was, at the time the Linux kernel was written, still in legal disputes on the matter of the copyright of its code.
2. Linux was written from scratch, mostly ... the kernel, I mean. The userland tools as well ... now, you will certainly find this or that, such as the zfs implementation ...
>Which begs the question as to whether or not such GPL code is appropriately licensed. Some guy lightly alters some BSD code and then whacks GPL all over it. That's a bit disingenuous, even if permitted by BSD. For the avoidance of future doubt such code should at least come with some statement of origin.
WTF ? Seriously, WTF? A great number of proprietary software houses abuse BSD's "openness" and never give anything back ... look at the worst bloatware purveyor on this planet, namely Microsoft, they have repeatedly taken stuff from BSD, most notably, its TCP/IP stack.
Now, how is this any worse than what GPL types do ? I mean, GPL'd code is freely available, provided you stick to the license - it is not. GPL is there so that proprietary competitors do not use the work of a gazillion devs in their proprietary BS.