Hello debian-legal list! I prepared igmpproxy package on https://mentors.debian.net/package/igmpproxy and I was directed here to ask question about Stanford license and igmpproxy. Looks like that same question was already asked in 2009, but it is without answer. Can you look at it? On Sunday 20 Jun 2009 20:54:12 Santiago Garcia Mantinan <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > I was thinking in packaging igmpproxy, but I'm afraid it is not clear > weather it is dfsg compliant or not. I'd like to know your opinion. > > igmpproxy can be found at http://sourceforge.net/projects/igmpproxy > and is supposed to be under GPLv2, but its codebase is smcroute 0.92 which > is also under GPLv2 and the problematic mrouted 3.9-beta3 which was under > the Stanford license, which I believe is considered not dfsg compliant, at > least we used to have that very same version of mrouted on nonfree. > > According to that, igmpproxy is not dfsg compliant, but Stanford guys have > relicensed their code, like it was said on http://bugs.debian.org/227146 > a more complete explanation on the mrouted relicensing can be seen here: > http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/usr.sbin/mrouted/LICENSE > > So... can we consider igmpproxy as dfsg compliant or not? > > Thanks in advance! > > Regards... Because igmpproxy is based on mrouted originally licensed under Stanford and later relicensed under BSD, I would consider it DFSG compliant... Or is there any problem? PS: I'm not subscribed to list, so CC me. -- Pali Rohár email@example.com
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.