Re: no need to keep non-copylefted files that way in a copylefted project. (was Re: FRR package in Debian violates the GPL licence)

[Giacomo Tesio <giacomo@tesio.it>]

On 20/03/2019, David Lamparter <equinox@diac24.net> wrote:
> By relicensing their code to GPL, Quagga had essentially shunted itself
> down to the position of any random proprietary relicensor.

I guess you mean that Quagga renounced to further contribution from
these people.

But the point is that Quagga is clearly abiding to the GPL, while FRR
compliance is... arguable.

While they are distributing the whole as GPL (which is correct) they
are actively stating that people can take a part of it that can only
be used as GPL and use it under a different license, while whoever do
so automatically terminates their own license on the whole FRR.


I think it's an interesting corner case.

I guess that if FRR writes a LICENSE.notice that say: "whatever the
files license header says, every single file of this code must be
treated as GPL", they would strengthen their own position without
violating the letter of their contributor request.

It goes without saying that adding a GPL header to those files that
need it would be totally equivalent and more fool-proof.


Giacomo