If you wanted to ensure that code be shared back into your projects, you'd use a copyleft-style license instead of a BSD/MIT-style license, wouldn't you?

So if I write some code and want it and future versions to be available under the BSD license I should GPL it? That does not make sense.

Say that I am for free speech, and you are for free speech with the one exception that it should not be allowed to argue against free speech. Would you say that I am wrong to want unlimited free speech, and if I want to ensure that you don't argue against it then I must be against free speech? No, I can still be of the opinion that you have the right to your opinions even if I don't share them.

There were two issues here. First there was a patch that removed the BSD license. This is of course not allowed, only the copyright holder can do that. That patch was rejected.

The other issue is that new additions are GPL licensed. This is legal. However, it is hypocritical since the point of GPL is to use legal means for the moral goals that derivative works should be available under the conditions the original author wants. In this case however the GPL is used to force derivative works not to be available according to the original autors wishes.

Thanks for your comments. Thanks also for finding that error.

Yeah - it's hard to know where to 'stop' (or start for that matter) when explaining QC algs. Shor's and Grover's in particular could do with a bit of work. Anyway, thanks again.