On May 7, 2015, at 6:45 AM, Juliusz Chroboczek <[email protected]> wrote: >> Just to re-iterate again, everyone, including Juliusz, seems to be agreed >> that Quagga is fully honouring all the licence conditions. > > I have no plans to sue anyone, if that's what you mean. However unethical > their behaviour. > > -- Juliusz
I'm a bystander with no dog in this fight (so what the heck am I doing here?). But based on the exchanges I've seen, I'm wondering if people are really as far apart as it seems right now. Unless there's more to this that hasn't been posted, I think Juliusz has two major issues: 1) Commit messages have incorrect attribution 2) The license is GPL, while the original code was BSDish IIRC, Paul already offered to redo the commits. That leaves #2 as the big issue. If each source file in Quagga were GPLed, but also contained a header referring to the matching BSD-licensed sources (thus allowing anyone who wanted is under a BSD license to access it easily), would that be anywhere close to satisfactory? The header would say something like "this code is also available under a BSD license at http://blahblah.blah";. True, the quagga-specific changes wouldn't be in that BSD version, but that should be fine - anyone who needs it under BSD license can't use quagga anyway. /a _______________________________________________ Quagga-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev
