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

Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?

Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@gmail.com> writes:

> Because igmpproxy is based on mrouted originally licensed under
> Stanford

That characterises a chain of derivative works: a work (mrouted)
was received by a party, who had license under the non-free
“send a copy to Stanford when you redistribute” conditions.

When that third party redistributed it (modified or not), everyone who
received it from them has license under those same terms.

So ‘igmpproxy’ also has components under those non-free terms. What
parts of the work are under those non-free conditions by copyright
holders *other than* Stanford?

> and later relicensed under BSD

Stanford's new grant of license can AIUI only have effect on their
copyright claim in the work. It does not change the existing grants of
license from other copyright holders, and Stanford certainly cannot
grant license on behalf of those copyright holders.

The question I don't see answered is: what modifications are there in
‘igmpproxy’ from copyright holders other than Stanford, which are not
affected by Stanford's later license grant?

> PS: I'm not subscribed to list, so CC me.

This discussion is long-running enough that I would recommend
participants should subscribe to the forum where it's happening.

 \          “Jury: A group of 12 people, who, having lied to the judge |
  `\       about their health, hearing, and business engagements, have |
_o__)                           failed to fool him.” —Henry L. Mencken |
Ben Finney

Reply to: