On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 11:17:23AM +0100, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> Technically, he is asserting that any text that use substantial
> original words defined in another original copyrightable text is a
> derivative work of such original text.
You can't copyright words. You probably can't even copyrig
Here are a few snippets out of a private mail on this topic; I've
removed the original mail and paraphrased its contents since I firmly
believe in not publishing any content (incl. metadata) from private
e-mails that isn't my own :)
- Forwarded message from David Lamparter
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 09:17:32AM +0100, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> The code distributed under a non-copyleft license depends heavily on
> copylefted one, so much that it's not possible to run (or even
> compile) it without the pre-existing copylefted one (that includes C
> headers that are not descri
On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 05:28:05PM -0700, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> David Lamparter wrote:
> > The respective original authors have expressed and reaffirmed their wishes
> > for the code to remain under a permissive license. . .. we have decided to
> > try and honour the origi
> > We expressly acknowledge that FRR binary packages must be
> > distributed in their entirety under GPLv2 or newer, and this is what
> > I thought is indicated in the Debian package too.
>
> Debian does not attach *any* license to a binary package.
Huh. This is slightly surprising to me, I thou
> My understanding is that those files in themselves are not derivative
> works of GPLed source code, but the entire FRR project is. At least,
> that's the judgment of the project in
> https://github.com/FRRouting/frr/issues/1923
For the record, with both my hats as the Debian maintainer for the f
6 matches
Mail list logo
