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 . > > > > 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 , > > , . > > > > And if Debian really had not problem to include smcroute 0.92 into > > archives in 2006  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 email@example.com
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.