On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 8:26 AM, Paul Jakma <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, 7 May 2015, Dave Taht wrote: > >> now understand that that merge did not include a revert of the original >> commits, preserving original authorships. > > > We can still do that.
I am going to butt out of this until I get a legal opinion on commit: 5734509c0545ebd95a5b8e3f22a911c1a39ffa1b This will take a few days. In the interim, I am satisfied that I understand the terms under which any future work I may perform in quagga will be under. > However, note that commit author does not generally == code author. That's > not true in Quagga for *many* commits (and I'm sure many other projects), > and it's obviously simply impossible to have that as a required rule. > > Attribution should be *in the source code*. > > When I want to find out who wrote code, I grep -i for 'copyright' in the > source code and I might look at the "LICENCE" file. I might also git log and > sort -u the authors to try catch anyone who forgot to put a Copyright line > in the source. > > Anyone who does this will see Juliusz and Matthieu are the authors (though > Matthieu is missing from the credits in the LICENCE file, in every babeld > version I know of - funny that). > > Using the method of "go the /first/ git commit and look at the author, and > declare that to be the only code author" - I don't know anyone who does > that. > >> It seems to me the clearest path to be able to do useful future work in >> quagga is to be assured that my commits remain mine so I can apply whatever >> licenses I want to other implementations of the same idea and my version of >> the code, and to keep sane, try to make sure that anything substantial >> enters the less restrictive codebases first. > > > I at least am happy to cater to people who want dual-licensing on some > contribution and setup policies to ensure no further contributions are > accepted to such code unless they give a dual-licence grant. > > E.g. read the Quagga babeld/LICENCE file. We /require/ that other > contributors update that file, to ensure Juliusz and Matthieu can use such > contributions in the standalone MIT/X11 version. > > We've bent over backwards to meet the /practical/ aspects of what Juliusz > seemed to want. In return Juliusz seems to think I am the devil incarnate > (it was a collective decision though). > >> Also, I have always treated bug fixes and small bits of code (< 10 >> lines) as basically license-free, but that is yet another untested >> legal theory (that I am willing to leave untested.) > > > Yeah. I'd like to update our HACKING document to try at least set the > default expectation to be that contributions come with the widest set of > licence grants relevant to the files touched. > >> My biggest concern remains that unless there is a maintainer willing to >> keep the two babel protocol implementations correct and up to date that the >> partial support in quagga is a major barrier to future protocol revisions >> emerging from the ietf standardization process. > > > I'm willing to do the work of tracking any external quagga-babeld > development and keeping Quagga synced up to that at least. > > IF people think that's what should be done. Right now, most people seem to > think it should be deleted though. > > regards, > -- > Paul Jakma [email protected] @pjakma Key ID: 64A2FF6A > Fortune: > Sho' they got to have it against the law. Shoot, ever'body git high, > they wouldn't be nobody git up and feed the chickens. Hee-hee. > -- Terry Southern -- Dave Täht Open Networking needs **Open Source Hardware** https://plus.google.com/u/0/+EricRaymond/posts/JqxCe2pFr67 _______________________________________________ Quagga-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev
