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

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out-of-date licences and copyright notices.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


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: