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

Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?

On Tuesday 22 November 2016 16:17:21 Roberto wrote:
> 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.

I know.

> The COPYING file that you linked says "Original license can be found
> in the Stanford.txt file". It says nothing about the BSD license.

But this statement is under mrouted section in COPYING file. Under 
igmpproxy section is written GPLv2+ license.

> The *.c files also point to the Standford.txt license.

And again in *.c files is GPLv2+ license with information that igmpproxy 
is based on smcroute (licensed under GPLv2) and mrouted which *original* 
license was Stanford.

Personally I do not see any pointer where is written that igmpproxy is 
licensed under Stanford. Everywhere is written that igmpproxy is GPLv2+ 
with some note that some it is based on derived work of mrouted which 
*orignal* license can be found in Stanford.txt.

> There is
> nothing in the igmpproxy that makes me think that they switched to
> the BSD license.

Yes, there is no information about it, also there is no information that 
igmpproxy switched from GPLv2+ to any other license.

Or why do you think that Stanford.txt applies to whole source code? From 
COPYING I understood it differently, due to sections in files, and also 
because on official webpage is written GPLv2+.

> 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).

Pali Rohár

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply to: