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

Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?

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 


> 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

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

Reply to: