Re: FRR package in Debian violates the GPL licence
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 available from anyone for the infringing work.
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 FRR, being code which depends explicitly and
heavily on the GPL code in the other directories and which can not be
compiled, comprehended or function without reference to the GPL source
code.
I'm open to resolving this, as part of a wider resolution of the issues
in this matter. Otherwise, I would be unlikely to.
The likelyhood of someone being able to drive this to resolution... But
people are welcome to try.
If the only possible license for that code is GPL (as it depends on
GPL code) one might argue that the lack of GPL header is a bug that
might fool a user to use that file as permissively licensed,
terminating his own license forever!
This isn't a "bug". This is a very deliberate attempt by a set of
corporates, led by Cumulus Networks, under a Linux Foundation project
aegis, to try erase the copyleft nature of the GPL licence on code,
which they havn't the right to do.
They are trying to forge a new reality for GPL code, where other
people's GPL code can be treated as if it had a much weaker licence, so
it can be appropriated by said corporates and their customers.
In any case if Debian distribute the code as GPL and that code can
only EXIST as a GPL derivative (thus GPL itself) they are not
violating anything, and they could easily add the missing headers just
to protect the user from an accidental but definotive termination.
We're talking about code that can only be distributed under the terms
required by the GPL, and where the original distributors of that code
have forfeited their right to distribute that code under the GPL through
licence infringement - from T=0.
Also, read David's email, where he is speaking for FRR: He is explicit
that FRR are _not_ distributing the source code concerned under the GPL
(and hence refuse to comply with the GPL notification requirements, even
where they have placed prominent notices of other applicable licences
which they find favourable). If there is any doubt as to whether FRR are
distributing the source code concerned under the GPL, I hope David's
email has dispelled it. Take him at his word.
I'd have to take advice to be 100% sure, but I do not believe it is
possible to obtain the code concerned with a GPL licence. Also, I do not
believe it is possible to take unlicensed code, slap a GPL notice on it,
and just unilaterally grant oneself a GPL licence to other people's
code.
regards,
--
Paul Jakma | paul@jakma.org | @pjakma | Key ID: 0xD86BF79464A2FF6A
Fortune:
Don't hit the keys so hard, it hurts.
Reply to: