[quagga-dev 12203] Babel differences (was Re: [PATCH 2/2] HACKING: Quagga is a GPL project)

Paul Jakma paul at jakma.org
Wed Apr 29 11:56:19 BST 2015


On Wed, 29 Apr 2015, Paul Jakma wrote:

>>  There are still unresolved difference opinions with some previous code
>>  (Babel) and I think that needs to be resolved first.
>
> There are no unresolved differences there, afaik.
>
> That matter was decided in 2012, based on legal advice. The 3 maintainers 
> involved in that had different opinions on the specifics, but we ultimately 
> agreed on a least-worst way forward.
>
> If there are issues, I'd encourage people to speak up here.

Ideally, in this new sub-thread. :)

I am not aware of any licensing issues with how Quagga distributes babeld, 
I don't think any other maintainer is either, and its major copyright 
holder has also stated in public we are in compliance with his licence.

I understand that copyright holder is unhappy because we decided it was 
safest to ensure we also respected all other possible copyright holders' 
licences by adding GPL notices. We did so based on legal advice at the 
time that babeld/ derives from libzebra. More recently I have had informal 
legal advice that re-iterates that at least some of the files in babeld/ 
must have GPL notices, e.g. files such as babel_zebra.c.

I personally am happy to oblige Quagga contributors in any reasonable way, 
as long as it respects the rights of _all_ contributors to Quagga.

In the case of babeld/ if those contributors would prefer we don't 
distribute at all, that's fine. If they'd like to help with structuring 
the code so that there's a bright line between the originally-external and 
adapted-code, then we could easily remove the GPL notices from at least a 
few babeld/ files.

What are the issues exactly?

regards,
-- 
Paul Jakma	paul at jakma.org	@pjakma	Key ID: 64A2FF6A
Fortune:
Once the toothpaste is out of the tube, it's hard to get it back in.
 		-- H.R. Haldeman




More information about the Quagga-dev mailing list