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

Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?

On Thursday 24 November 2016 18:21:07 Roberto wrote:
> 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

I do not know, but mrouted was relicensed to BSD in 2003 and igmpproxy 
started in 2005 (according to year in source files). And because BSD is 
compatible with GPL, you can relicense those parts to GPL and adds your 
own GPL code to it. Then whole package can be redistributed only under 

> > > 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.

I'm not saying that it invalidates. Just that I understood that whole 
igmpproxy can be redistributed under GPLv2+ and some other parts, based 
on mrouted had original license Stanford.txt... and those and only those 
parts (without other GPL) can be redistributed also under Stanford 
license... This is how I understood it.

> > 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.

So... question now is, can be whole igmpproxy (as one software package) 
redistributed under GPLv2+? I think yes that yes.

Or... if you think that not, what is reason, and what needs to be done?

And can be included igmpproxy package into Debian?

Pali Rohár

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

Reply to: