David Lamparter wrote:
> The respective original authors have expressed and reaffirmed their wishes
> for the code to remain under a permissive license. . .. we have decided to
> try and honour the original author's requests.
That's an odd request, since it contradicts the terms of the license
* Marco d'Itri:
> ARIN believes that they have a right to limit distribution of this RSA
> public key (used for verification of routing security):
>
> https://www.arin.net/resources/rpki/arin-rfc7730.tal
Do they actually do that? Prevent redistribution?
If so, I can't find where.
> Does
* Paul Jakma:
> On Tue, 19 Mar 2019, Roberto wrote:
>
>> On the other side, if I understood correctly, there are authors who
>> want to contribute their code under GPL exclusively, and they feel
>> that some of their changes got included into the bundled libraries
>> (and are significant
Paul Jakma writes:
> On Tue, 19 Mar 2019, Ole Streicher wrote:
>
>> Paul Jakma writes:
>>> The people involved in (3) - Linux Foundation, Cumulus Networks,
>>> 6WIND, Big Switch Networks, etc. - refuse to acknowledge the legal
>>> reality that the code of (3) is covered by the GPL licence of the
On Tue, 19 Mar 2019, Ole Streicher wrote:
Paul Jakma writes:
The people involved in (3) - Linux Foundation, Cumulus Networks,
6WIND, Big Switch Networks, etc. - refuse to acknowledge the legal
reality that the code of (3) is covered by the GPL licence of the code
of (2), and refuse to honour
Paul Jakma writes:
> The people involved in (3) - Linux Foundation, Cumulus Networks,
> 6WIND, Big Switch Networks, etc. - refuse to acknowledge the legal
> reality that the code of (3) is covered by the GPL licence of the code
> of (2), and refuse to honour the conditions required by the GPL -
On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 02:22:08PM +, Paul Jakma wrote:
> 3. People took the code of (2), and adapted that code - extensively and
>explicitly - to make use of and rely upon the facilities of the code
>of (1); facilities which were missing in the code of (2).
>
> The people involved in
Correction:
On Tue, 19 Mar 2019, Paul Jakma wrote:
On Tue, 19 Mar 2019, Roberto wrote:
On the other side, if I understood correctly, there are authors who want
to contribute their code under GPL exclusively, and they feel that some of
their changes got included into the bundled libraries
On Tue, 19 Mar 2019, Roberto wrote:
On the other side, if I understood correctly, there are authors who
want to contribute their code under GPL exclusively, and they feel
that some of their changes got included into the bundled libraries
(and are significant enough to be covered by
On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 02:08:38PM +0100, David Lamparter wrote:
> The respective original authors have expressed and reaffirmed their
> wishes for the code to remain under a permissive license. While we
> could obviously just slap GPL on top, we have decided to try and honour
> the original
On Mon, 18 Mar 2019, Vincent Bernat wrote:
IMO because the definition of derived work comes from binary linking
(static or dynamic).
The advice I've had did not reason in these terms.
As I know the FRR people think computer technical implementation details
like dynamic linkage, and address
11 matches
Mail list logo
