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

Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?



On Sunday 11 December 2016 13:28:52 Pali Rohár wrote:
> 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.

Hi! I got permissions for all authors & contributors of igmpproxy for
all patches in git igmpproxy repository to relicense their changes to
GPLv2+. Therefore I released new igmpproxy version 0.2 which is now
fully GPLv2+ compatible:

https://github.com/pali/igmpproxy/releases/tag/0.2

And also I put updated package to mentors:

https://mentors.debian.net/package/igmpproxy

Ian, would you review new debian package?

Hopefully this licensing problem is now solved.

-- 
Pali Rohár
pali.rohar@gmail.com


Reply to: