[quagga-dev 9273] Re: quagga license clarification

Henderson, Thomas R thomas.r.henderson at boeing.com
Fri May 4 19:47:37 BST 2012



> -----Original Message-----
> From: quagga-dev-bounces at lists.quagga.net [mailto:quagga-dev-
> bounces at lists.quagga.net] On Behalf Of Paul Jakma
> Sent: Friday, May 04, 2012 2:40 AM
> To: Quagga development list
> Subject: [quagga-dev 9261] Re: quagga license clarification
> 
> On Wed, 2 May 2012, Henderson, Thomas R wrote:
> 
> > David, first, thanks for restarting the NEWS file in response to my
> > previous post, and for your maintenance activities in general.
> >
> > In browsing the release, I noticed that there is both a COPYING and
> > COPYING.LIB file.  Should COPYING.LIB be deleted?  I only see a
> couple
> > of imported source files (regex.c and regex-gnu.h) licensed under
> LGPL.
> > Inclusion of COPYING.LIB implies that the overall project is
> > LGPL-licensed.
> 
> No, these are just copies of licence texts. Their presence should not
> imply anything of itself. They are there merely so that other files can
> refer to them. E.g. each code file may state what licence applies to
> it, and refer to, say, COPYING. COPYING.LIB is there because lib/regex*
> refers to it.
> 
> But, yes, it's confusing. :)

I had a different interpretation.  Please read:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html

The presence of including COPYING.LIB (what they refer to as COPYING.LESSER) implies that "you are releasing your program under the LPGL".

> 
> Perhaps there is no more need for lib/regex* anymore, and we can just
> get rid of it and COPYING.LIB, as the simplest option.
> 
> > Also, along these lines, you could further clarify on the web site
> > (http://www.nongnu.org/quagga/devel.html) that quagga is 'GPLv2'
> > licensed, instead of just 'GPL' licensed.
> 
> What's the motivation there for that change? GPLv2 seems (potentially
> inaccurately) over-determined, compared to GPL.

GPLv3 is a different license than GPLv2, so I don't think it is over-determined to clarify this point.  I'm mainly suggesting the clarification to provide better guidance on what license you are willing to accept from contributors.  If not GPLv3, then specify GPLv2.  If you do not care whether new files come in with GPLv2 or GPLv3, then it probably doesn't matter, but I believe that you will have to update COPYING once you bring in GPLv3 code.  Based on how babeld was merged, it may also be helpful to provide guidance on the web site on submitting code that has other permissive licenses.

- Tom





More information about the Quagga-dev mailing list