On 20/03/2019, David Lamparter <equi...@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
