frr: add FRRouting, a Quagga fork #319
Conversation
lucize
force-pushed
the
frr
branch
2 times, most recently
from
a995487
to
b249cf8
Compare
lucize
changed the title
|
@jow- frr reached 3.0 stable, can we have this in ? |
lucize
changed the title
|
I'm not a user but how does this compare to quagga (which still seems active)? |
|
Quagga is quite stalled also see statement and the reccent issue #299 solved by this version |
|
Please, also read https://lists.gt.net/quagga/users/32627 . @pjakma is expressing concerns on how FRR distributes Quagga source code. |
|
but I don't see any detail about that, as they further discussed on the mailinglist and I don't think that we should concern about that, if that will happen then FRR should take care of that |
|
On Sun, 22 Oct 2017, Lucian CRISTIAN wrote:
but I don't see any detail about that, as they further discussed on
the mailinglist and I don't think that we should concern about that,
if that will happen then FRR should take care of that that means that
Quagga twice received opinion from lawyers.
The first relatively informal. Some, who then went on to push for a fork
once they did not get their way, would not accept that opinion. They
formulated various techy-pseudo-legal arguments, e.g. that copyright
works differently for source versus binaries.
A formal legal opinion was then obtained for the Quagga project, with
the query to the solicitor drawn up based on arguments from both sides.
(note: I know FRR people tried - and failed - to obtain legal opinion
favourable to their position before then).
The legal state is, as far as I know, clear: source code of derived
works of Quagga must be distributed under the terms of the Quagga
licence, i.e. the GPLv2+.
Those leading the FRR project have knowingly and deliberately chosen not
to do that. As a result, Section 4 of the GPL on the code from Quagga
applies to the FRR project, to Cumulus Networks and their agents, and
other associated parties: their GPLv2 licence to the code base has
terminated.
They have made arguments about the licence on the Quagga code that would
permit distribute proprietary derived works from the Quagga codebase.
I don't intend to allow those arguments to stand.
regards,
--
Paul Jakma | [email protected] | @pjakma | Key ID: 0xD86BF79464A2FF6A
Fortune:
You will have good luck and overcome many hardships.
|
|
Note: That the legal issues with their desired form of distribution
would end up causing difficulties for downstream distributors was
pointed out to parties on the FRR side, on several occasions, over
years.
regards,
--
Paul Jakma | [email protected] | @pjakma | Key ID: 0xD86BF79464A2FF6A
Fortune:
No violence, gentlemen -- no violence, I beg of you! Consider the furniture!
-- Sherlock Holmes
|
|
Given someone decided to link to The Register article that is very one-sided (and contains highly misleading statements): https://lwn.net/Articles/718859/ Missing from the above, that I could not state until recently, due to implicit threats by my former employer: https://lists.quagga.net/pipermail/quagga-dev/2017-October/033285.html |
|
I don't want to state who's whom, weren't on the loop with things, this is just a Makefile that is using the source code available on github having more options from other open source projects side notes: this is thing is not good for anyone, and if legal actions needs to be made, as an end user, should we just wait and see IF someday this will be addressed ? |
lucize
changed the title
|
Updated to stable 5.0.1 there are some small changes to be done and it will be ready Hopefully now has a clear advantage over the existing alternatives |
|
I have tested this package, and all in all, it seems to work well. There are some smaller nits which I found: a) The pager can be set with configure by now, I have added b) c) |
|
Hi,
The FRR project vehemently denies the applicability of the GPL licence
of code obtained via Quagga (and GNU Zebra before that) to other code
they distribute, where that other code has been made to be explicitly be
heavily dependent on said GPL code for its function and comprehension,
e.g. ldpd and babeld. And they encourage others to take the same
position too.
They refuse to acknowledge the applicability of the GPL to that other
code by deliberately refusing to put GPL notices on the code, as is
customary, when that code carries notices of other licenses (which do
not fulfill the conditions required by the GPL).
This is a very deliberate position of the FRR project, which has
been expressed consistently over a number of years - and which they
acted on from day-0 of the fork (indeed, this was the driving force for
the fork, as far as I am concerned). E.g.:
FRRouting/frr#1923
The consequence is this, as far as I am concerned:
- The termination provisions of the GPL licence became applicable to the
FRR project, including (but not limited to) NetDEF,
OpenSourceRouting.org, Cumulus Networks, 6WIND, Big Switch Networks.
- No GPL licence is available for the affected code.
- Distribution or use by of the affected code is also unlicensed.
That means downstreams of FRR have no licence to use or distribute (and
saying "well, whatever about FRR, /I/ choose to recognise the GPL as
applying to that code, and I'll claim to distribute it under the GPL" -
won't fix things, particularly not if the code is distributed exactly as
FRR do).
This situation can not be fixed. Certainly not so long as the principals
of the FRR project refuse to acknowledge that any code that explicitly
is built on and depends on GPL code must itself be distributed under
terms that *fully* implement the conditions required by the GPL licence.
If the OpenWRT project wants to violate the copyright of code I made
available under the GPL via the Quagga project, then the OpenWRT project
will be at risk of having its licence to my code terminated.
I reserve the right to recover damages and/or compensation for any use
of software of mine, that is not otherwise stricly in accordance with
the licence conditions I made it available under.
That includes from distributors such as the OpenWRT project, as well as
any users of OpenWRT.
regards,
Paul
…On Thu, 23 Aug 2018, Lucian CRISTIAN wrote:
Updated to stable 5.0.1 there are some small changes to be done and it will be ready
Hopefully now has a clear advantage over the existing alternatives
--
Paul Jakma | [email protected] | @pjakma | Key ID: 0xD86BF79464A2FF6A
Fortune:
Dreams are free, but there's a small charge for alterations.
|
|
@cfra updated, maybe you can see why the syslog repeats
or maybe is the intended behavior |
|
@lucize this is actually happening because |
|
@cfra cherry-picked |
|
What is current legal status of frr? I saw some licenses changes commits durring last time. Is still license problem? |
|
I have the 7-dev on my tree if someone needs it, i'll update the PR |
|
On Mon, 21 Jan 2019, Paweł Dembicki wrote:
What is current legal status of frr? I saw some licenses changes
commits durring last time.
Is still license problem?
If someone decides to distribute GPL code as BSD or MIT/X11 licensed
code, against the advice of copyright holders in the GPL portions (who
also gave constructive advice on alternate ways to do this, that would
/not/ cause a legal mess - advice which was ignored), because of their
own commercial imperatives, then the GPL licence /terminates/ for those
people/entities.
Those who have lost their licence can not regain a licence by unilateral
changes on their side. Those they distribute the software to also lack a
licence to use or distribute the software.
…----
I made code available to people, building on Kunihiro Ishiguro's (et al)
GNU Zebra, under the GPL. I didn't ask for anything except that
contributions be reviewed, and that the licence on my code (and /all/
others) be respected.
Some people were displeased by that. They smeared me. They even went to
my employer, using their commercial connections with said employer. I
was *barred* from working on a project I loved, even in _my own time in
my own home with my own equipment_ - under threat of having my
employment terminated.
There is no way, after that was done, that I am just going to forgive
and forget, so long as the damage done is left unrepaired.
Note well: I reserve the right to recover compensation and damages from
any parties involved in this infringement, either through distribution
or use. Including from OpenWRT, should OpenWRT choose to distribute
the infringing software.
regards,
--
Paul Jakma | [email protected] | @pjakma | Key ID: 0xD86BF79464A2FF6A
Fortune:
You ain't learning nothing when you're talking.
|
|
Sorry, but I don't understand. FRR is distributed under GPL. I'm confused. |
lucize
changed the title
lucize
force-pushed
the
frr
branch
2 times, most recently
from
571a8dd
to
03ca7fa
Compare
FRRouting is free software that implements and manages various IPv4 and IPv6 routing protocols. Currently FRRouting supports BGP4, BGP4+, BFD, OSPFv2, OSPFv3, RIPv1, RIPv2, RIPng, IS-IS, PIM-SM/MSDP, LDP, OpenFabric, VRRP and Babel as well as very early support for EIGRP and NHRP. https://github.com/FRRouting/frr/wiki Signed-off-by: Lucian Cristian <[email protected]>
Interesting. The closest thing Quagga has to a working homepage right now specifies it is available under "GNU General Public License v2 or later". This might be convenient for the FRRouting folks, since GPLv3 explicitly re-grants license rights in Section 8, paragraph 2:
I say "might" because FRRouting is GPLv2, not v3, and I have no idea if distributing a derivative of v3 software as v2 is legal. Though it seems overall that the decision has already been made. |
this version is the initial release for LEDE/OpenWRT
Mantainer: ME
Compile/Run Tested: x86_64, sunxi, mips
Signed-off-by: Lucian Cristian [email protected]