On March 21, 2019 4:21:22 PM UTC, David Lamparter wrote:
>You can't copyright words.
Not words, but as you say, you can copyright characters.
And characters have names.
And such names are the first expressions of the copyright, that is called
copy-right because if regulate the copy of those
On Thu, 21 Mar 2019, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
What you say is: I could replace the "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's
Stone" with another novel under the same name "Harry Potter and the
Sorcerer's Stone" and with the same characters (data structures,
enums...) and places (functions, macros...) AND
On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 11:17:23AM +0100, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> Technically, he is asserting that any text that use substantial
> original words defined in another original copyrightable text is a
> derivative work of such original text.
You can't copyright words. You probably can't even
On 21/03/2019, Eloi wrote:
> El 21/3/19 a les 11:17, Giacomo Tesio ha escrit:
>> So why do you think that this is a "toxic precedent"?
>
> No free software could run under Windows without proper Microsoft
> licensing: Firefox, Libreoffice...
>
> No free software could use or implement compatible
On 21/03/2019, Christian Kastner wrote:
> On 2019-03-20 16:46, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
>> How this relates to compilation?
>
> It doesn't. Nobody is disputing that the compiled result is GPL.
>
> The question at hand is the licensing of the source. These are two
> separate issues.
Sure, I was
El 21/3/19 a les 11:17, Giacomo Tesio ha escrit:
> So why do you think that this is a "toxic precedent"?
No free software could run under Windows without proper Microsoft
licensing: Firefox, Libreoffice...
No free software could use or implement compatible Windows services,
either server or
On 21/03/2019, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> On 21/03/2019, Christian Kastner wrote:
>>> So why do you think that this is a "toxic precedent"?
>>
>> Because then you'd never be able to provide a compatible free software
>> alternative to *any* proprietary solution.
>
> But they couldn't provide any
On 21/03/2019, Christian Kastner wrote:
> On 2019-03-21 11:17, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
>> Most of commercial APIs are crap so we wouldn't lose much.
>
> You care confusing quality with popularity/success. POSIX has its own
> share of crap interfaces, but they are prevalent.
No, I know that crap is
On 2019-03-21 11:17, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> Most of commercial APIs are crap so we wouldn't lose much.
You care confusing quality with popularity/success. POSIX has its own
share of crap interfaces, but they are prevalent.
> OTOH Free Software is strong enough to innovate and through a strong
>
On 2019-03-20 16:46, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> How this relates to compilation?
It doesn't. Nobody is disputing that the compiled result is GPL.
The question at hand is the licensing of the source. These are two
separate issues.
> If the GPL header at
>
On March 21, 2019 12:04:36 PM UTC, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
>>
>> Lots of free software also is very much inspired by proprietary
>works,
>> be they APIs, protocol or entire programs.
>
>http://docs.ceph.com/docs/mimic/radosgw/s3/
Is Amazon S3 the best possible interface one could think of?
For
On March 21, 2019 11:55:04 AM UTC, Ansgar wrote:
>As far as I know POSIX isn't a new and original interface that was
>designed in a clean room; it (in large parts) documents interfaces that
>were available in proprietary operating systems.
As long as the original vendors recognised the standard
On 21/03/2019, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> I'm not sure why you are supporting Oracle's position, but consider
> the impact on the computing world of that position, and what trouble
> it causes if it wins.
I can't answer for Paul, and I really don't care about neither Oracle or Google.
But
Paul Jama wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Ole Streicher wrote:
>> My example
>>
>> #include
>> int main(void) { zlog_rotate(); return 0; }
>>
>> is not an adaption of any GPL code. It is fully written by my
>> own.
>
> It is written by you, and you have copyright in it (in some way, I
> have
On 21/03/2019, Steve Langasek wrote:
> But as for the substance of your claim, what you are doing here is asserting
> copyright on an interface. While there has been recent notable case law in
> certain jurisdictions which wrongly supports the notion that interfaces
> contain sufficient
Paul Jakma writes:
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Ole Streicher wrote:
>> #include
>> int main(void) { zlog_rotate(); return 0; }
>>
>> is not an adaption of any GPL code. It is fully written by my
>> own.
>
> It is written by you, and you have copyright in it (in some way, I
> have the vague idea there
Hi Paul,
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 10:54:12AM +, Paul Jakma wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Ole Streicher wrote:
> > Those files do not use GPL code; they just refer to it. No line of that
> > code was originated in GPL licensed code.
> Ah, you're in the "copyright only protects literal
On 20/03/2019, Giovanni Mascellani wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Il 20/03/19 12:25, Giacomo Tesio ha scritto:
>> The current construct is a violation of the GPL term as that code is
>> derivative of GPL code for all intents and purposes. So much that it
>> cannot even compile without the GPL code.
>
> I don't
Hi,
Il 20/03/19 12:25, Giacomo Tesio ha scritto:
> The current construct is a violation of the GPL term as that code is
> derivative of GPL code for all intents and purposes. So much that it
> cannot even compile without the GPL code.
I don't understand what does this matter. Copyright apply to
Paul Jakma writes:
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Ole Streicher wrote:
>
>> Paul Jakma writes:
>>> On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Ole Streicher wrote:
#include
int main(void) { zlog_rotate(); return 0; }
>
>> This work is completely based on my own, there is no intellectual
>> property of someone
Hi Paul
I’ve watching this thread with interest, and I must admit I’m reluctant to get
too involved, but there are a couple of things I thought it might be helpful
(!) to point out.
> On 20 Mar 2019, at 13:53, Paul Jakma wrote:
>
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Ole Streicher wrote:
>
>> My example
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Ole Streicher wrote:
Paul Jakma writes:
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Ole Streicher wrote:
#include
int main(void) { zlog_rotate(); return 0; }
This work is completely based on my own, there is no intellectual
property of someone else in my source code.
Except for the big
Paul Jakma writes:
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Ole Streicher wrote:
>> #include
>> int main(void) { zlog_rotate(); return 0; }
>>
>> is not an adaption of any GPL code. It is fully written by my
>> own.
>
> It is written by you, and you have copyright in it (in some way, I
> have the vague idea there
Here are a few snippets out of a private mail on this topic; I've
removed the original mail and paraphrased its contents since I firmly
believe in not publishing any content (incl. metadata) from private
e-mails that isn't my own :)
- Forwarded message from David Lamparter -
Someone
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Ole Streicher wrote:
My example
#include
int main(void) { zlog_rotate(); return 0; }
is not an adaption of any GPL code. It is fully written by my
own.
It is written by you, and you have copyright in it (in some way, I
have the vague idea there can be complex legal
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 at 14:00 Paul Jakma wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, David Given wrote:
[...]
> > - I *can* use this library in BSD code, and distribute both together
> > as an aggregate under the terms of the GPL --- because the BSD
> > license conditions are met by the GPL, so by
Paul Jakma writes:
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Ole Streicher wrote:
>> GPLv2, section 2 explicitly allows aggregation:
>>
>> | In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Progra
>
> How can this apply to a derived work, which is based on the GPL work?
The FRR code is not "derived
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Ole Streicher wrote:
GPLv2, section 2 explicitly allows aggregation:
| In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Progra
How can this apply to a derived work, which is based on the GPL work?
regards,
--
Paul Jakma | p...@jakma.org | @pjakma | Key ID:
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, David Given wrote:
they're all standalone modules being used in a library context.
Derived works of GPL code must be licensed under the GPL too.
Whether that code has one kind of object file header or another
prepended to it is a low-level technical implementation
David Given writes:
> - I can't use this library in closed source code, and distribute the
> result as an aggregate --- because there is no license which can meet
> the terms of the GPL and my closed source license.
>
> - I can use this this library in closed source code, and distribute
> the
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, David Given wrote:
- I *can* take your GPL code and turn it into a GPL library. That's what
the GPL is for. I don't even need to ask you about it.
Agreed.
- I *can* use this library in BSD code, and distribute both together
as an aggregate under the terms of the GPL
Giacomo Tesio writes:
> The current construct is a violation of the GPL term as that code is
> derivative of GPL code for all intents and purposes. So much that it
> cannot even compile without the GPL code.
For the license of source code, it is not required that it compiles.
And, taking out a
Paul Jakma writes:
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Ole Streicher wrote:
>
>> Those files do not use GPL code; they just refer to it. No line of that
>> code was originated in GPL licensed code.
>
> Ah, you're in the "copyright only protects literal copying" camp, and
> you don't acknowledge the concept of
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 at 12:26 Paul Jakma wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, David Given wrote:
>
[...]
> > and FRR would be entirely within their rights to have pulled
> > these out from the original app and turned them into a GPL library,
> > *with* public entry points, and then ship that along with
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 at 13:10, Paul Jakma wrote:
>
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Andrej Shadura wrote:
>
> > Apparently they’re not qualified in software licenses and copyrights.
> > Sorry I have to say that.
>
> You're a software engineer, with no legal qualifications or experience
> listed in your
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Andrej Shadura wrote:
You cannot terminate GPL granted to someone without a violation. There
clearly is no violation in the case you’re describing. Your legal
advice is invalid.
I have legal advice, two independent sets, from qualified solicitors
that there is a
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
Here I suggest you all to find a friendly solution anyway for the same
reason.
I tried for years to find friendly solutions. Many of the things others
have suggested in this thread I already suggested/explored years and
years ago with the people who
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Ole Streicher wrote:
They don't need to do that themself, but they may want to keep that
path open for downstream. And so their license allows that.
Their licence on their portion of the work, perhaps.
However, the work *also* requires a licence from the copyright
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Paul Jakma wrote:
No, you can't just take GPL of code mine, libify it and say it's OK
for it be used in proprietary code, without my agreement.
Oh, and even if I myself have already put that GPL code in a library,
it's still not OK for you to say "You can use this with
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, David Given wrote:
OTOH the bits of Zebra he pointed out to me are all standalone
modules,
There are further inter-dependencies between those modules. E.g,, things
like the API that provides the route-filtering relies upon the
event-handling system (lib/thread), etc.
On 20/03/2019, Ole Streicher wrote:
> Giacomo Tesio writes:
>> While they are distributing the whole as GPL (which is correct) they
>> are actively stating that people can take a part of it that can only
>> be used as GPL and use it under a different license, while whoever do
>> so automatically
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 at 11:48 Ole Streicher wrote:
> Paul Jakma writes:
>
[...]
> > Those files are derived works of the GPL code and must be distributed
> > according to the conditions of the GPL licence, if they are to be
> > distributed lawfully.
>
> Those files do not use GPL code; they
Paul Jakma writes:
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Ole Streicher wrote:
>
>> A downstream could remove the GPL dependencies (for example by
>> replacing it with a [dummy] re-implementation, or by removing any
>> references) and legally redistribute the result under a non-GPL
>> license.
>
> I advised the
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Ole Streicher wrote:
Those files do not use GPL code; they just refer to it. No line of that
code was originated in GPL licensed code.
Ah, you're in the "copyright only protects literal copying" camp, and
you don't acknowledge the concept of derived works.
There's
On 20/03/2019, Paul Jakma wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
>
>> It goes without saying that adding a GPL header to those files that
>> need it would be totally equivalent and more fool-proof.
>
> After X years of not doing so, denying the applicability of the GPL to
> files
Paul Jakma writes:
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Ole Streicher wrote:
>
>> This does not match section 1, which allows the distribution of
>> unmodified files along with the proper license information.
>
> What unmodified files are you referring to?
Section 1 handles the case of unmodified files, and
On 20/03/2019, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> But I think that the GPL says that you have to distribute any derived
> work as GPL.
> It doesn't say that you have to distribute the derived work as GPL only.
Badly expressed sorry.
I mean, if the derived work contains GPL-only code, it must be
distributed
On 20/03/2019, David Lamparter wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 09:17:32AM +0100, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
>> The code distributed under a non-copyleft license depends heavily on
>> copylefted one, so much that it's not possible to run (or even
>> compile) it without the pre-existing copylefted one
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Ole Streicher wrote:
A downstream could remove the GPL dependencies (for example by
replacing it with a [dummy] re-implementation, or by removing any
references) and legally redistribute the result under a non-GPL
license.
I advised the people, who are now FRR, that
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Ole Streicher wrote:
This does not match section 1, which allows the distribution of
unmodified files along with the proper license information.
What unmodified files are you referring to?
I have explained several times now that this concerns files which were
created
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
It goes without saying that adding a GPL header to those files that
need it would be totally equivalent and more fool-proof.
If that had been done at the outset...
After X years of not doing so, denying the applicability of the GPL to
files which
Giacomo Tesio writes:
> While they are distributing the whole as GPL (which is correct) they
> are actively stating that people can take a part of it that can only
> be used as GPL and use it under a different license, while whoever do
> so automatically terminates their own license on the whole
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 09:17:32AM +0100, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> The code distributed under a non-copyleft license depends heavily on
> copylefted one, so much that it's not possible to run (or even
> compile) it without the pre-existing copylefted one (that includes C
> headers that are not
Giacomo Tesio writes:
> On 20/03/2019, Ole Streicher wrote:
>> This does not match section 1, which allows the distribution of
>> unmodified files along with the proper license information.
>>
>> Again: Could you please point to the section in the GPL that is
>> violated?
>
> The "with the
On 20/03/2019, Ole Streicher wrote:
> This does not match section 1, which allows the distribution of
> unmodified files along with the proper license information.
>
> Again: Could you please point to the section in the GPL that is
> violated?
The "with the proper license" part. ;-)
Giacomo
Paul Jakma writes:
> On Tue, 19 Mar 2019, Ole Streicher wrote:
>> Paul Jakma writes:
>>> b) They are not complying with Section 1.
>>
>> In GPLv2, section 1 allows the distribution of unmodified source code,
>> if the license information is distributed unmodified as well.
>
>> Which unmodified
On 20/03/2019, David Lamparter wrote:
> By relicensing their code to GPL, Quagga had essentially shunted itself
> down to the position of any random proprietary relicensor.
I guess you mean that Quagga renounced to further contribution from
these people.
But the point is that Quagga is clearly
On 20/03/2019, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> This is an example of a common trend I see: social pressure to keep
> non-copylefted code under non-copyleft licenses, sometimes even escalating
> to aggression (as the OpenBSD project did with Linux over wireless drivers),
> while permitting and even
On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 05:28:05PM -0700, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> 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
On Tue, 19 Mar 2019, Ole Streicher wrote:
In GPLv2, section 1 allows the distribution of unmodified source code,
if the license information is distributed unmodified as well.
Which unmodified GPL source code do they distribute without the
licensing information?
They are distributing files
* Bradley M. Kuhn:
> 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
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
* 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
❦ 18 mars 2019 15:45 +00, Paul Jakma :
>> Being merely dependent on third-party code is not, to my
>> understanding, sufficient to be considered derived code.
>
> If code which is written to depend explicitly and heavily on the APIs
> and frameworks provided by GPL is /not/ considered subject to
On Mon, 18 Mar 2019, Thorsten Alteholz wrote:
[2]
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.en.html#CombinePublicDomainWithGPL
"You can do that, if you can figure out which part is the public domain
part and separate it from the rest."
Indeed...
See also my earlier email on
On Mon, 18 Mar 2019, Giacomo wrote:
On March 18, 2019 4:44:09 PM UTC, Paul Jakma wrote:
On Mon, 18 Mar 2019, Giovanni Mascellani wrote:
I think I have seen MIT/BSD pieces of code in most of the GPL
projects
I have looked into.
Nothing in the advice I have received precludes the happy
On March 18, 2019 4:44:09 PM UTC, Paul Jakma wrote:
>On Mon, 18 Mar 2019, Giovanni Mascellani wrote:
>
>> I think I have seen MIT/BSD pieces of code in most of the GPL
>projects
>> I have looked into.
>
>Nothing in the advice I have received precludes the happy co-existence
>of MIT/BSD code
On Mon, 18 Mar 2019, Giovanni Mascellani wrote:
I think I have seen MIT/BSD pieces of code in most of the GPL projects
I have looked into.
Nothing in the advice I have received precludes the happy co-existence
of MIT/BSD code with GPL code in the same project.
The cases you have in mind,
Hi,
Il 18/03/19 16:45, Paul Jakma ha scritto:
> If code which is written to depend explicitly and heavily on the APIs
> and frameworks provided by GPL is /not/ considered subject to the GPL,
> but 'mere' 'aggregration', one would wonder why the LGPL would ever have
> been drafted. One would
On Mon, 18 Mar 2019, David Given wrote:
Being merely dependent on third-party code is not, to my
understanding, sufficient to be considered derived code.
If code which is written to depend explicitly and heavily on the APIs
and frameworks provided by GPL is /not/ considered subject to the
On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 at 13:09 Paul Jakma wrote:
[...]
> Anyway, a small, non-exhaustive sampling with rough, incomplete notes -
> for the sake of speed:
>
Thanks!
I may be missing something here, but none of the examples you gave show any
signs of being derived code. They *use* vty.[ch], but do
On Mon, 18 Mar 2019, David Given wrote:
On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 at 11:10 Paul Jakma wrote:
[...]
One would need to obtain a licence from all the copyright holders
concerned. According to advice, I am one of those copyright holders. And
that includes having a copyright interest in the code in the
On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 at 11:10 Paul Jakma wrote:
[...]
> One would need to obtain a licence from all the copyright holders
> concerned. According to advice, I am one of those copyright holders. And
> that includes having a copyright interest in the code in the ldpd/ and
> babeld/ directories of
On Sun, 17 Mar 2019, Giacomo wrote:
Hi Paul, a question:
what if Debian added such the missing header to those files that miss
it before packaging, so that the source packages comply with the
License?
My understanding is the work would still be unlicensed. There is no GPL
licence
David Lamparter writes:
> We expressly acknowledge that FRR binary packages must be distributed in
> their entirety under GPLv2 or newer, and this is what I thought is
> indicated in the Debian package too.
Debian does not attach *any* license to a binary package. It just
documents the licenses
I didn't look at the code (sorry), but those files that depends on GPL code
(either by calling GPL functions that are not described by a standard, or using
data structures defined in GPL code or using global variables there defined),
can only be licensed as GPL.
You cannot build a (say) MIT
Hi Paul, a question: given you agree that the code without proper license
header must be under GPL as derived work of GPL code, what if Debian added such
the missing header to those files that miss it before packaging, so that the
source packages comply with the License?
While I am just
> My understanding is that those files in themselves are not derivative
> works of GPLed source code, but the entire FRR project is. At least,
> that's the judgment of the project in
> https://github.com/FRRouting/frr/issues/1923
For the record, with both my hats as the Debian maintainer for the
On Sat, 16 Mar 2019, Don Armstrong wrote:
I am going to stick with the legal advice I have received, including
from a solicitor specialising in copyright, over the belief of
someone with no qualifications in this area and no experience other
than having read some stuff on the Internet.
This
On Sat, 16 Mar 2019, Paul Jakma wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Mar 2019, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > Debian does, in /usr/share/doc/frr/copyright.
>
> That is not one of the files at issue.
That's in the binary package and source package that Debian distributes;
we don't distribute files separately.
> I am
On Sat, 16 Mar 2019, Don Armstrong wrote:
Debian does, in /usr/share/doc/frr/copyright.
That is not one of the files at issue.
My understanding is that those files in themselves are not derivative
works of GPLed source code, but the entire FRR project is. At least,
that's the judgment of
On Sat, 16 Mar 2019, Paul Jakma wrote:
> The GPL stipulates that the distributor must "appropriately publish on
> each copy an appropriate copyright notice".
Debian does, in /usr/share/doc/frr/copyright.
> This is very deliberate, as FRR denies the applicablility of the GPL
> to those files,
On Sat, 16 Mar 2019, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Sat, 16 Mar 2019, Paul Jakma wrote:
The code concerned however is explicitly /not/ being distributed under
the terms required by the GPL licence, but rather much weaker licences
(BSD or MIT/X11, e.g.). Licenses which fail to implement the
reciprocal
On Sat, 16 Mar 2019, Paul Jakma wrote:
> The code concerned however is explicitly /not/ being distributed under
> the terms required by the GPL licence, but rather much weaker licences
> (BSD or MIT/X11, e.g.). Licenses which fail to implement the
> reciprocal source code publication conditions of
Hi Paul,
On Sat, 16 Mar 2019 at 14:19, Paul Jakma wrote:
> It is - I am advised - not permitted by the GPL and infringing of my
> copyright in thise code-base, and also incitement to commit copyright
> infringement. As such, the termination clause of the GPL became
> applicable to FRR.
>
> Use
93 matches
Mail list logo
