On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 8:26 AM, Paul Jakma wrote:
> On Thu, 7 May 2015, Dave Taht wrote:
>
>> now understand that that merge did not include a revert of the original
>> commits, preserving original authorships.
>
>
> We can still do that.
I am going to butt out of this until I get a legal opinion
Hi,
I have been trying the VRF features for the last few weeks, and I
have a few questions about the implementation and the use of VRF. I
can't seem to be able to contact the author (Feng) directly , so I was
wondering if there is anyone on the list here who are familiar with
features/imp
On Thu, 7 May 2015, Dave Taht wrote:
now understand that that merge did not include a revert of the original
commits, preserving original authorships.
We can still do that.
However, note that commit author does not generally == code author. That's
not true in Quagga for *many* commits (and I
> Was it ethical to threaten to contact my university to have them open
> academic misconduct proceedings against me?
Has anyone done that?
-- Juliusz
___
Quagga-dev mailing list
Quagga-dev@lists.quagga.net
https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/qua
On Thu, 7 May 2015, Nick Hilliard wrote:
given that the babeld tree in the quagga repo is unmaintained and is
unlikely to be maintained in future,
That isn't quite true. I'm happy to keep it synced up with any external
work - already done.
IF that were the preferred and chosen option.
the
On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 7:47 AM, Paul Jakma wrote:
> On Thu, 7 May 2015, Alexis Rosen wrote:
>
>> True, the quagga-specific changes wouldn't be in that BSD version, but
>> that should be fine - anyone who needs it under BSD license can't use quagga
>> anyway.
>
>
> The source files have both Julius
On Thu, 7 May 2015, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
I have no plans to sue anyone, if that's what you mean. However unethical
their behaviour.
Was it ethical to threaten to contact my university to have them open
academic misconduct proceedings against me?
regards,
--
Paul Jakma p...@jakma.
On Thu, 7 May 2015, Alexis Rosen wrote:
True, the quagga-specific changes wouldn't be in that BSD version, but
that should be fine - anyone who needs it under BSD license can't use
quagga anyway.
The source files have both Juliusz' MIT/X11 notices and GPL licence
notices.
Further, we requi
The #define IPV6_MINHOPCNT define is never defined on any unix platform.
>From what I can tell the original implementation on the linux platform
was IPV6_MINHOPCNT, when it got accepted into the mainstream kernel
it was transformed into IPV6_MINHOPCOUNT. Since we test for the
define before att
On May 7, 2015, at 6:45 AM, Juliusz Chroboczek
wrote:
>> Just to re-iterate again, everyone, including Juliusz, seems to be agreed
>> that Quagga is fully honouring all the licence conditions.
>
> I have no plans to sue anyone, if that's what you mean. However unethical
> their behaviour.
>
>
On 06/05/2015 21:33, Greg Troxel wrote:
> The question remains what's legally appropriate, in terms of respecting
> the license of the code from Zebra, and the social norms within and open
> source project.
given that the babeld tree in the quagga repo is unmaintained and is
unlikely to be maintai
> Just to re-iterate again, everyone, including Juliusz, seems to be agreed
> that Quagga is fully honouring all the licence conditions.
I have no plans to sue anyone, if that's what you mean. However unethical
their behaviour.
-- Juliusz
___
Quagga-d
On Wed, 6 May 2015, Dave Taht wrote:
highly disputed, and sorely contentious implementation.
Just to re-iterate again, everyone, including Juliusz, seems to be agreed
that Quagga is fully honouring all the licence conditions. At least the
written licence conditions accompanying the source co
On Wed, 6 May 2015, Dave Taht wrote:
I have no vote in this matter! (not being a copyright-holder), but as
so far as I know the actual users of the quagga-babeld code borders on
"none", and this dispute is unresolvable.
Until such time as a purely GPL'd version of the babeld sources is
created
14 matches
Mail list logo
