On Sunday 11 December 2016 13:13:08 Ian Jackson wrote:
> 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.
Yes, I see it same.
> > 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...
If you look at https://sourceforge.net/projects/igmpproxy/ you should
see blue notice: "As of 2016-03-29, this project may now be found at
https://github.com/pali/igmpproxy.";
That github repository is my and original sourceforge maintainers gave
me maintaining igmpproxy project.
I'm already trying to fix all those licensing problems, but it will take
some time to contact all affected persons...
At least now we have version 0.1 hopefully GPLv2+ compatible.
> I would recommend, in the upstream package, removing all the
> out-of-date licences and copyright notices. The copyright notices
> should all say GPLv2+.
Yes, I will do that, but first I need to collect permissions from all
people whose patches are in upstream git repository. After that I can
get rid of that Stanford license.
> Historical information can be retained in the git history, and in a
> document which explains the authorship and licensing history of
> igmpproxy.
Yes, but now, for version in upstream git they are not historical yet.
--
Pali Rohár
pali.rohar@gmail.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.