Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?
On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 07:29:21PM +0100, Roberto wrote:
> 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.
I reply myself... actually I think I have not understood your statements
correctly, reading it again it seems that you think that the mrouted
code is somewhat dual licensed with GPL or Stanford.txt and you can
choose which one to apply. That's not the case, when combined into a GPL
program both licenses are active and must be obeyed *at the same time*
(supposing that they are compatible, which I doubt).