rlm_sqlippool IPR

Frank Cusack fcusack at fcusack.com
Thu Sep 15 21:58:42 CEST 2005

On September 15, 2005 3:12:42 PM -0400 Alan DeKok <aland at ox.org> wrote:
> Frank Cusack <fcusack at fcusack.com> wrote:
>> You can't know for sure how Globe.Net intended to license the software,
>> especially given their demonstrated na??vete made clear by their failure
>> to specify license terms in their source.
>   They requested that the code be submitted to a project that they
> knew was licensed under the GPL.

Legally knew?

>>  If they decide they didn't know inclusion meant GPL (or change
>> their mind down the road and claim ignorance), you can be sure the
>> legal battle will be hell.
>   I don't think so.  But that's my $0.02.

Well, not if you simply remove the code.

>> You really must have explicit license terms in order to include sql_ippool
>> (or any contrib software).
>   For one-line patches?

No, but I thought the entirety of the module was theirs.  If it was just
a one liner, it's obviously ok.  cvs log seems to indicate it's the
entire module.

>   If that was a serious worry, then nearly every GPL'd project would
> be vulnerable to the same issues.

Well, even though a one-liner may seem to be obviously ok, GPL has not
been tested in court and until such time, every GPL'd project *is*

I fail to see why it's difficult to add an explicit GPL header.


More information about the Freeradius-Devel mailing list