Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I do believe there is a spirit of open source. The only things defining open source and free software are the copyright hacks that are licenses such as GPL, MIT, BSD, etc. If someone wants their code to not be used a certain way, they can adapt their license it to avoid it.
With all due respect I find this view shallow and very incomplete. Open source is not a set of licenses, it’s people, companies, code, etc. The only reason to ever talk about open source in terms of just what the licenses say alone is if you are dealing with legal issues. The licenses themselves are nothing more than a tool used to facilitate open source within the copyright system. Again... legal obligations and mor…
Sorry, I can see where the frustration comes from here, but from an outsider's view the CDDL is just as much to blame. It takes two for there to be a license incompatibility. If there is some piece of information missing here then let us know, although in my experience the lawyers don't like to make this sort of thing public.
>I tend to use a BSD license, and I don’t personally care what happens to my code. Still, that doesn’t mean that I think there aren’t ways to abuse that where someone benefits and open source loses.
I also use non-copyleft licenses a lot, but accepting that other parties are going to profit and not give anything back has always been a part of that. It's not a total loss -- it gives you an in to lobby them hard for donations, support payments, consulting fees, or some other kind of contribution.