Re: FRR package in Debian violates the GPL licence
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 spaces, etc., are very important here,
I specifically double-checked with the solicitor, and my understanding
is they are not really relevant here.
Which I guess isn't surprising, as things like "derived work" (or
"adapted work", etc.) are legal terms that do not really depend on the
low-level technicalities of computer programming.
There are libreadline alternatives licensed under a BSD-like license
(like libedit or libeditline). There are API-compatible, not
ABI-compatible. If you link the program with libreadline, you have to
distribute the result under the GPL. If you link it with libedit, you
don't have to. The source code of the program is exactly the same. Is
it GPL or is it not?
The API exposed by Quagga could be provided by another project using
another license.
If there had been other completely independent implementations of the
facilities and functions provided at present by the GPL code they
obtained from Quagga (and GNU Zebra before it), then perhaps the legal
advice would be different. I don't know, but I concede it could be -
you'd have to ask a lawyer.
Anyway, that's not the reality we're in.
I will stick with the views of those qualified solicitors, over the
view of a software engineer, at least on legal matters.
Maybe these views could be published somewhere.
Sure.
Will do, once Cumulus Networks, 6WIND, Linux Foundation,
NetDEF/OpenSourcerouting.org/whatever other corporates Martin Winter or
Alistair Woodman or David Lamparter are involved in, etc., publish their
legal advice on this matter.
regards,
--
Paul Jakma | paul@jakma.org | @pjakma | Key ID: 0xD86BF79464A2FF6A
Fortune:
Someone is broadcasting pigmy packets and the router dosn't know how to
deal with them.
Reply to: