Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?
On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 02:42:34PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
[...]
> Note that smcroute 0.92 was accepted into Debian [4].
>
> Due to above GPL facts in igmpproxy files I think that everybody though
> igmpproxy is licensed and distributed under GPL. If it was legal and I
> correct I do not know... But since 2003 after mrouted got alternative BSD
> license I think it is correct to redistribute smcroute 0.92 and so also
> igmpproxy under GPL as states in [1], [2], [3].
>
> And if Debian really had not problem to include smcroute 0.92 into
> archives in 2006 [4] I guess there should not be problem to include also
> derivate works from smcroute 0.92 licensed under GPL.
The authors of smcroute maybe agreed to relicense the code, but that
does not make any other programs based on mrouted automatically
relicensed.
The COPYING file that you linked says "Original license can be found in
the Stanford.txt file". It says nothing about the BSD license. The *.c
files also point to the Standford.txt license. There is nothing in the
igmpproxy that makes me think that they switched to the BSD license. If
you had been in contact with the authors and they gave you a special
permission to make the license change, please include in
debian/copyright the information or the emails in which they gave you
permission to do so, and please don't do it without their full knowledge
and approval.
> ... Or do you have any other opinion which could cause problem in this
> situation?
I can't offer legal advice, just saying that according to the
information given in the source code of igmpproxy, it seems clear to me
that is still distributed under the GPL *and* the Standford license. The
code included in igmpproxy has been largely modified and its subject to
the copyright of mrouted *and* igmpproxy's contributors, so all of them
must agree in order to change the license.
(Whether the standford license is DFSG-free and/or compatible with the
GPL is a different issue).
Reply to: