On 20/03/2019, Ole Streicher <oleb...@debian.org> wrote: > Giacomo Tesio <giac...@tesio.it> writes: >> 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. > > A downstream could remove the GPL dependencies (for example by replacing > it with a [dummy] re-implementation, or by removing any references) and > legally redistribute the result under a non-GPL license.
As things stands now, anyone using that code would violate the GPL license. To gain that effect, I think your only solution is to double license your patches as GPL and whatever license you prefer. The custom license would only apply to your contributions, not to the whole application but to get advantage of it a downstream would have to terminate all GPL grants on all code that your contributions depends upon. > The current construct allows this, and this seems to be the intention of > the copyright owners of the questioned code. No. The current construct is a violation of the GPL term as that code is derivative of GPL code for all intents and purposes. So much that it cannot even compile without the GPL code. > You may not like it, but > since the code writers do not derived from GPL code when they wrote > their source (the GPL code is only used when it is compiled/linked), > they are free to do so. It's not what I like that matter. But I think your interpretation is very arguable. If the new code depends on GPL headers, call GPL functions and use GPL data structures that are original copyrightable code, it is a derivative work. Much like if I write an original novel containing the characters and places of Harry Potter, it's a derivative work of Rowling's one. And I guess that I couldn't print and sell it without paying right to her. Giacomo
