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

Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?

On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 06:36:53PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
> 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.

OK, I think I understand it better now. We are basically saying the same
thing then, with only one difference.

If the original code of mrouted was included bundled in a separate
directory unmodified, or easily replaceable, then yes, you could replace
it with the new BSD version and then "relicense" all Stanford code under

But, as far as I know, it has been modified and mixed into other
product, so in order to change the license of those parts, permission is
needed from all of its authors and contributors (which now includes
igmpproxy authors because the modifications are also copyrighted by
them). That's why in my first email I say that nobody else can switch the
license, even if mrouted switched long ago, the forked code is a different
program now. Sorry if it was not clear.

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

I disagree, I'm not even sure that the Standford license is compatible
with the GPL, and even when all licenses are compatible, you should
still include all of them in debian/copyright file and should pass the

That is only my opinion, I would like to read opinions from more people
on this list.

> Or... if you think that not, what is reason, and what needs to be done?
> And can be included igmpproxy package into Debian?

Probably asking the authors if they can please switch the license, it
will benefit not only Debian but anyone who downloads from upstream
source as well.

Reply to: