On Friday 25 November 2016 14:56:34 Dmitry Alexandrov wrote: > > 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). > > For what it’s worth, I am pretty sure that any version GNU GPL and > ‘Stanford.txt’ are *not* compatible because of jurisdiction choice > clause of the latter: > > ,---- > > | 6. This agreement shall be construed, interpreted and applied in > | accordance with the State of California and any legal action > | arising out of this Agreement or use of the Program shall be filed > | in a court in the State of California. > > `---- Yes, but mrouted was release/relicensed under less restrictive BSD license too. As wrote in one of first emails, here is link to text of new mrouted license: http://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/usr.sbin/mrouted/LICENSE > However, in case authors of igmpproxy are not bound by someone else’s > copyleft (I did not check that), that should not be a unresolvable > problem — they are able to give an excetion to allow such a > combination. One might even argue that by distributing their work > they had given an implicit exception already. So... what needs to be done that igmpproxy could be redistributed as one package under GPLv2+ license? -- Pali Rohár email@example.com
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.