On Tue, 19 Mar 2019, Roberto wrote:
On the other side, if I understood correctly, there are authors who want
to contribute their code under GPL exclusively, and they feel that some of
their changes got included into the bundled libraries (and are significant
enough to be covered by copyright), so those libraries should be wrapped
by the GPL as well.
It's not like that. It's more like (as a high-level summary):
1. There are GPL libraries (and associated support daemons), providing a
number of facilities.
2. There is BSD and MIT/X11 licensed code
3. People took the code of (2), and adapted that code - extensively and
explicitly - to make use of and rely upon the facilities of the code
of (1); facilities which were missing in the code of (2).
The people involved in (3) - Linux Foundation, Cumulus Networks, 6WIND, Big
Switch Networks, etc. - refuse to acknowledge the legal reality that the code
of (3) is covered by the GPL licence of the code of (2), and refuse to honour
the conditions required by the GPL - see David Lamparter's mail.
They've gone to great lengths on that, including using corporate connections
to adversely affect the employment of copyright holders of (2), where those