Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?
Pali Rohár writes ("Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?"):
> igmpproxy is derived work from the smcroute 0.92. Carsten Schill is
> author of smcroute. I checked license of smcroute 0.92 and it specify:
>
> ** This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> ** it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
> ** the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
> ** (at your option) any later version.
>
> So I have not contacted him as he already clarify his work under GPLv2+.
> In COPYING of igmpproxy is just GPLv2 for his work, but it is probably
> mistake in COPYING file as I was not able to find any information that
> smcroute 0.92 was under different license as GPLv2+ in past.
Ah. Right. Jolly good.
I think the problem is then just that the information isn't clear in
the source package.
> I put there sourceforge homepage as I took last release of igmpproxy
> which comes from sourceforge. On github is not new release yet, but
> there are new commits and patches which are not part of 0.1. Now I'm
> trying to collect GPLv2+ relicense permissions for those patches...
Oh dear!
> So version on github is not GPLv2+ compatible, but that on
> sourceforge should be now... Once version on github will be license
> OK, I could release new version on github and also update
> debian/control Homepage field.
I think you and upstream need to work together urgently to make sure
that the upstream package has a clear and consistent licence.
Otherwise you will continually be playing catch-up like this...
I would recommend, in the upstream package, removing all the
out-of-date licences and copyright notices. The copyright notices
should all say GPLv2+.
Historical information can be retained in the git history, and in a
document which explains the authorship and licensing history of
igmpproxy.
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
Reply to: