Dave Taht <[email protected]> writes: > I don't really understand what this is intended to clarify. > > Are you asking contributors to specifically relicense their code as > GPL as a criterion for inclusion? That does make for headaches with > alternatively licensed code under lighter licenses with many > contributors. > > Or are you merely requiring that the license of included code be > compatible with the GPL (as the BSD, apache, and many other OSI > approved licenses are.)
Quagga as a whole is GPL2, and thus the derived work which is quagga+foo may be distributed only under the GPL. So it's necessary for contributors to grant permission to copy under the GPL (and to be able to grant such permission). This is not odd; pretty much every project without an explicit CLA or assignment has an "inbound=outbound" licensing policy. It's obvious to me that quagga has always been like this; it's just being explained better because there seems to be confusion. Note that granting permission under GPL2 does not imply anything about what people have to do with code that already existed outside of quagga.
pgp5pRV9hTvOH.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Quagga-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev
