Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?
On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 05:36:57PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
> On Tuesday 22 November 2016 16:17:21 Roberto wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 02:42:34PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > 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.
I don't understand this phrase, do you mean that igmpproxy authors
relicensed the mrouted source code under the GPLv2+ license? And how if
would be possible
> > 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.
And again I'm not sure that I'm correctly understanding you. If you are
saying that the GPL somewhat invalidates other licenses and now the code
has become GPL because it was mixed with other GPL code then I must
disagree. In that case it would be very easy to change any license into
the GPL.
> 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+.
No, I don't think that Stanford.txt applies to whole source code. It
applies to *part* of the source code, that's what COPYING file
says.
It is very common for projects to be based on several other projects and
combined from multiple licenses, and it is not a problem if licenses are
compatible and DFSG-free.
Reply to: