"Robert D. Nelson" wrote:
>
> >I'll ask, but I think he'll say that the license applies to the source; if
> >a commercial fork was made, then they are free to hide the source. But if
> >they ever release the source, then it has to go under the BSD again.
>
> What I was asking was, if someone forks the code base, aren't they allowed
> to change their license? It would only make sense that they distinguish
> themselves as the developers of the new code fork, right?
>
> So, can't the code be forked in such a way that no code changes, and only
> the license?
As soon as you have a licence fork, you automatically get a code fork.
Because all patches are going to be submitted under one licence or the
other, then the other fork loses out.