On Wed, 20 May 2015, Paul Jakma wrote:
Let's be clear about something:
The nub of the issue here is that at least some lawyers say (AIUI) that when
you write code that heavily depends on someone else's code, then you no
longer exclusively own that code. The other people also are copyright
On Wed, 20 May 2015, David Lamparter wrote:
reason - their choice to put work into something is completely
independent.
Let's be clear about something:
The nub of the issue here is that at least some lawyers say (AIUI) that
when you write code that heavily depends on someone else's code,
Oh, and finally, the whole discussion is now academic.
We have stopped distributing babeld.
We are unlikely to ever again merge any code that is not explicitly marked
as GPL with the approval of all copyright holders, if that code depends on
any of the rest of GPL Quagga.
regards,
--
Paul
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 08:10:34AM +0100, Paul Jakma wrote:
On Wed, 20 May 2015, David Lamparter wrote:
Either we accept their choices and welcome them, or we don't pick up
their code. Ignoring their choices and merging it in the full knowledge
that they spoke out against it is not a
On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 11:26:22AM +0300, Timo Teras wrote:
On Tue, 5 May 2015 10:20:32 +0200
David Lamparter da...@opensourcerouting.org wrote:
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 09:49:54AM -0400, Donald Sharp wrote:
As an aside. Is there a particular reason we have 5 different set
metric command
As any new compiler version, clang 3.6 has new warnings, one of these
being that it now warns for testing whether the address of an array will
be true.
Of course there is no point in this check for the sysid, so let's always
just print the sysid.
Signed-off-by: David Lamparter
Hi Jafar and Andrew,
I think that both development are complementary. The point that bother me is to
call this 'vrf-lite', it seems to be more policy based routing. As you said, we
can easily imagine a scenario with netns + multiple routing table. Calling it
vrf will confuse the user.
With only
