On Wed, 6 May 2015, Dave Taht wrote:
It does no harm for quagga contributors to know that the babel subdirectory is covered by the original, simpler, vastly more permissive license. They can choose to work on it, or not.
Except that two different lawyers I've had advice from say that babeld is (or likely is, whatever) also subject to (or whatever the terminology is) the GPL licence of those parts of Quagga that the Quagga-babeld port builds/depends/derives on (again, whatever the right terminology is), and that therefore the quagga-babeld port must be distributed in accordance with the terms of the GPL.
The first time we got legal advice it stated: "you're most likely going to have to ship your modified babeld under GPL.".
To my understanding, to ship software under the GPL means you must heed ยง1, which requires GPL notices on the source code files. However, as that advice wasn't explicit on that point, this point was unclear. I've since taken more legal advice, which was more detailed and explicit, and says that if Quagga ships the quagga-port of babeld those files which have been modified to integrate libzebra functionality should have GPL notices.
That is to say, my understanding is that Quagga is *required* to ship babeld with GPL notices (least, the lawyers say we should).
So we just can't do what Juliusz wants.We can delete babeld from Quagga and not ship it, though presumably that wouldn't make Juliusz happy either.
We can't ship it as Juliusz wants, because the lawyers I've asked to date say we can't.
That's the reality. regards, -- Paul Jakma [email protected] @pjakma Key ID: 64A2FF6A Fortune: "THIS time it really is fixed. I mean, how many times can we get it wrong? At some point, we just have to run out of really bad ideas.." - Linus Torvalds"
_______________________________________________ Quagga-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev
