[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?

Pali Rohár writes ("Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?"):
> 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 <manty@debian.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...

I think the situation is fine now.  I suggest you include a
screenscrape of the openbsd web page, in the source package (to answer
future quetions, if any), if there are no better sourdes for the


Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>   These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

Reply to: