Discussion:
is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?
(too old to reply)
Santiago Garcia Mantinan
2009-06-20 18:54:12 UTC
Permalink
I was thinking in packaging igmpproxy, but I'm afraid it is not clear
weather it is dfsg compliant or not. I'd like to know your opinion.

igmpproxy can be found at http://sourceforge.net/projects/igmpproxy
and is supposed to be under GPLv2, but its codebase is smcroute 0.92 which
is also under GPLv2 and the problematic mrouted 3.9-beta3 which was under
the Stanford license, which I believe is considered not dfsg compliant, at
least we used to have that very same version of mrouted on nonfree.

According to that, igmpproxy is not dfsg compliant, but Stanford guys have
relicensed their code, like it was said on http://bugs.debian.org/227146
a more complete explanation on the mrouted relicensing can be seen here:
http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/usr.sbin/mrouted/LICENSE

So... can we consider igmpproxy as dfsg compliant or not?

Thanks in advance!

Regards...
--
Manty/BestiaTester -> http://manty.net
Pali Rohár
2016-11-20 13:52:33 UTC
Permalink
Hello debian-legal list!

I prepared igmpproxy package on https://mentors.debian.net/package/igmpproxy
and I was directed here to ask question about Stanford license and igmpproxy.

Looks like that same question was already asked in 2009, but it is without
answer. Can you look at it?
Post by Santiago Garcia Mantinan
I was thinking in packaging igmpproxy, but I'm afraid it is not clear
weather it is dfsg compliant or not. I'd like to know your opinion.
igmpproxy can be found at http://sourceforge.net/projects/igmpproxy
and is supposed to be under GPLv2, but its codebase is smcroute 0.92 which
is also under GPLv2 and the problematic mrouted 3.9-beta3 which was under
the Stanford license, which I believe is considered not dfsg compliant, at
least we used to have that very same version of mrouted on nonfree.
According to that, igmpproxy is not dfsg compliant, but Stanford guys have
relicensed their code, like it was said on http://bugs.debian.org/227146
http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/usr.sbin/mrouted/LICENSE
So... can we consider igmpproxy as dfsg compliant or not?
Thanks in advance!
Regards...
Because igmpproxy is based on mrouted originally licensed under Stanford
and later relicensed under BSD, I would consider it DFSG compliant...

Or is there any problem?

PS: I'm not subscribed to list, so CC me.
--
Pali Rohár
***@gmail.com
Ian Jackson
2016-11-21 21:41:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pali Rohár
Looks like that same question was already asked in 2009, but it is without
answer. Can you look at it?
.
Post by Pali Rohár
Post by Santiago Garcia Mantinan
I was thinking in packaging igmpproxy, but I'm afraid it is not clear
weather it is dfsg compliant or not. I'd like to know your opinion.
igmpproxy can be found at http://sourceforge.net/projects/igmpproxy
and is supposed to be under GPLv2, but its codebase is smcroute 0.92 which
is also under GPLv2 and the problematic mrouted 3.9-beta3 which was under
the Stanford license, which I believe is considered not dfsg compliant, at
least we used to have that very same version of mrouted on nonfree.
According to that, igmpproxy is not dfsg compliant, but Stanford guys have
relicensed their code, like it was said on http://bugs.debian.org/227146
http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/usr.sbin/mrouted/LICENSE
So... can we consider igmpproxy as dfsg compliant or not?
Thanks in advance!
Regards...
Because igmpproxy is based on mrouted originally licensed under Stanford
and later relicensed under BSD, I would consider it DFSG compliant...
I think the situation is fine now. I suggest you include a
screenscrape of the openbsd web page, in the source package (to answer
future quetions, if any), if there are no better sourdes for the
relicence.

Thanks,
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <***@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.
Roberto
2016-11-22 13:20:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pali Rohár
Because igmpproxy is based on mrouted originally licensed under Stanford
and later relicensed under BSD, I would consider it DFSG compliant...
For what is worth, my point of view follows:

In general, when a program is relicensed, the new license is not applied
automatically to forks and derivative versions. Imagine that I make a
GPL program that the igmpproxy developers modify and include into
igmpproxy. I later relicense my code to a license incompatible with the
GPL; igmpproxy won't automatically switch to the new license unless
everyone agree (and probably will never happen because they are fine
with the GPL version).

If the new license of mrouted is better, we can expect that all
developers and contributors will be happy to switch, but it must be done
by them, nobody else can switch the license in their behalf unless they
give permission.

According to the source repository of igmpproxy, it is stil using the
Standford license.
Pali Rohár
2016-11-22 13:42:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roberto
Post by Pali Rohár
Because igmpproxy is based on mrouted originally licensed under Stanford
and later relicensed under BSD, I would consider it DFSG compliant...
In general, when a program is relicensed, the new license is not applied
automatically to forks and derivative versions. Imagine that I make a
GPL program that the igmpproxy developers modify and include into
igmpproxy. I later relicense my code to a license incompatible with the
GPL; igmpproxy won't automatically switch to the new license unless
everyone agree (and probably will never happen because they are fine
with the GPL version).
If the new license of mrouted is better, we can expect that all
developers and contributors will be happy to switch, but it must be done
by them, nobody else can switch the license in their behalf unless they
give permission.
According to the source repository of igmpproxy, it is stil using the
Standford license.
Based on information provided by (old) igmpproxy webpage [1] its license
is "GNU General Public License version 2.0". README file [2] in version
0.1 contains: "This software is released under the GNU GPL license v2.".
And finally COPYING file in version 0.1 [3] has GPL version 2 with some
information that software is derived work from smcroute 0.92 which was
licensed under the GNU General Public License, version 2. And that
smcroute 0.92 was derivative work of mrouted which was licensed under
Stanford.txt (and later relicensed to BSD).

Note that smcroute 0.92 was accepted into Debian [4].

Due to above GPL facts in igmpproxy files I think that everybody though
igmpproxy is licensed and distributed under GPL. If it was legal and I
correct I do not know... But since 2003 after mrouted got alternative BSD
license I think it is correct to redistribute smcroute 0.92 and so also
igmpproxy under GPL as states in [1], [2], [3].

And if Debian really had not problem to include smcroute 0.92 into
archives in 2006 [4] I guess there should not be problem to include also
derivate works from smcroute 0.92 licensed under GPL.

... Or do you have any other opinion which could cause problem in this
situation?

[1] - https://sourceforge.net/projects/igmpproxy/
[2] - https://sourceforge.net/p/igmpproxy/code/ci/0.1/tree/README
[3] - https://sourceforge.net/p/igmpproxy/code/ci/0.1/tree/COPYING
[4] - https://packages.qa.debian.org/s/smcroute/news/20060624T145546Z.html
--
Pali Rohár
***@gmail.com
Roberto
2016-11-22 15:17:21 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 02:42:34PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
[...]
Post by Pali Rohár
Note that smcroute 0.92 was accepted into Debian [4].
Due to above GPL facts in igmpproxy files I think that everybody though
igmpproxy is licensed and distributed under GPL. If it was legal and I
correct I do not know... But since 2003 after mrouted got alternative BSD
license I think it is correct to redistribute smcroute 0.92 and so also
igmpproxy under GPL as states in [1], [2], [3].
And if Debian really had not problem to include smcroute 0.92 into
archives in 2006 [4] I guess there should not be problem to include also
derivate works from smcroute 0.92 licensed under GPL.
The authors of smcroute maybe agreed to relicense the code, but that
does not make any other programs based on mrouted automatically
relicensed.

The COPYING file that you linked says "Original license can be found in
the Stanford.txt file". It says nothing about the BSD license. The *.c
files also point to the Standford.txt license. There is nothing in the
igmpproxy that makes me think that they switched to the BSD license. If
you had been in contact with the authors and they gave you a special
permission to make the license change, please include in
debian/copyright the information or the emails in which they gave you
permission to do so, and please don't do it without their full knowledge
and approval.
Post by Pali Rohár
... Or do you have any other opinion which could cause problem in this
situation?
I can't offer legal advice, just saying that according to the
information given in the source code of igmpproxy, it seems clear to me
that is still distributed under the GPL *and* the Standford license. The
code included in igmpproxy has been largely modified and its subject to
the copyright of mrouted *and* igmpproxy's contributors, so all of them
must agree in order to change the license.

(Whether the standford license is DFSG-free and/or compatible with the
GPL is a different issue).
Pali Rohár
2016-11-24 16:36:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roberto
[...]
Post by Pali Rohár
Note that smcroute 0.92 was accepted into Debian [4].
Due to above GPL facts in igmpproxy files I think that everybody
though igmpproxy is licensed and distributed under GPL. If it was
legal and I correct I do not know... But since 2003 after mrouted
got alternative BSD license I think it is correct to redistribute
smcroute 0.92 and so also igmpproxy under GPL as states in [1],
[2], [3].
And if Debian really had not problem to include smcroute 0.92 into
archives in 2006 [4] I guess there should not be problem to include
also derivate works from smcroute 0.92 licensed under GPL.
The authors of smcroute maybe agreed to relicense the code, but that
does not make any other programs based on mrouted automatically
relicensed.
I know.
Post by Roberto
The COPYING file that you linked says "Original license can be found
in the Stanford.txt file". It says nothing about the BSD license.
But this statement is under mrouted section in COPYING file. Under
igmpproxy section is written GPLv2+ license.
Post by Roberto
The *.c files also point to the Standford.txt license.
And again in *.c files is GPLv2+ license with information that igmpproxy
is based on smcroute (licensed under GPLv2) and mrouted which *original*
license was Stanford.

Personally I do not see any pointer where is written that igmpproxy is
licensed under Stanford. Everywhere is written that igmpproxy is GPLv2+
with some note that some it is based on derived work of mrouted which
*orignal* license can be found in Stanford.txt.
Post by Roberto
There is
nothing in the igmpproxy that makes me think that they switched to
the BSD license.
Yes, there is no information about it, also there is no information that
igmpproxy switched from GPLv2+ to any other license.

Or why do you think that Stanford.txt applies to whole source code? From
COPYING I understood it differently, due to sections in files, and also
because on official webpage is written GPLv2+.
Post by Roberto
If you had been in contact with the authors and
they gave you a special permission to make the license change,
please include in
debian/copyright the information or the emails in which they gave you
permission to do so, and please don't do it without their full
knowledge and approval.
Post by Pali Rohár
... Or do you have any other opinion which could cause problem in
this situation?
I can't offer legal advice, just saying that according to the
information given in the source code of igmpproxy, it seems clear to
me that is still distributed under the GPL *and* the Standford
license. The code included in igmpproxy has been largely modified
and its subject to the copyright of mrouted *and* igmpproxy's
contributors, so all of them must agree in order to change the
license.
(Whether the standford license is DFSG-free and/or compatible with
the GPL is a different issue).
--
Pali Rohár
***@gmail.com
Roberto
2016-11-24 17:21:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pali Rohár
Post by Roberto
The COPYING file that you linked says "Original license can be found
in the Stanford.txt file". It says nothing about the BSD license.
But this statement is under mrouted section in COPYING file. Under
igmpproxy section is written GPLv2+ license.
I don't understand this phrase, do you mean that igmpproxy authors
relicensed the mrouted source code under the GPLv2+ license? And how if
would be possible
Post by Pali Rohár
Post by Roberto
The *.c files also point to the Standford.txt license.
And again in *.c files is GPLv2+ license with information that igmpproxy
is based on smcroute (licensed under GPLv2) and mrouted which *original*
license was Stanford.
And again I'm not sure that I'm correctly understanding you. If you are
saying that the GPL somewhat invalidates other licenses and now the code
has become GPL because it was mixed with other GPL code then I must
disagree. In that case it would be very easy to change any license into
the GPL.
Post by Pali Rohár
Or why do you think that Stanford.txt applies to whole source code? From
COPYING I understood it differently, due to sections in files, and also
because on official webpage is written GPLv2+.
No, I don't think that Stanford.txt applies to whole source code. It
applies to *part* of the source code, that's what COPYING file
says.

It is very common for projects to be based on several other projects and
combined from multiple licenses, and it is not a problem if licenses are
compatible and DFSG-free.
Pali Rohár
2016-11-24 17:36:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roberto
Post by Pali Rohár
Post by Roberto
The COPYING file that you linked says "Original license can be
found in the Stanford.txt file". It says nothing about the BSD
license.
But this statement is under mrouted section in COPYING file. Under
igmpproxy section is written GPLv2+ license.
I don't understand this phrase, do you mean that igmpproxy authors
relicensed the mrouted source code under the GPLv2+ license? And how
if would be possible
I do not know, but mrouted was relicensed to BSD in 2003 and igmpproxy
started in 2005 (according to year in source files). And because BSD is
compatible with GPL, you can relicense those parts to GPL and adds your
own GPL code to it. Then whole package can be redistributed only under
GPL...
Post by Roberto
Post by Pali Rohár
Post by Roberto
The *.c files also point to the Standford.txt license.
And again in *.c files is GPLv2+ license with information that
igmpproxy is based on smcroute (licensed under GPLv2) and mrouted
which *original* license was Stanford.
And again I'm not sure that I'm correctly understanding you. If you
are saying that the GPL somewhat invalidates other licenses and now
the code has become GPL because it was mixed with other GPL code
then I must disagree. In that case it would be very easy to change
any license into the GPL.
I'm not saying that it invalidates. Just that I understood that whole
igmpproxy can be redistributed under GPLv2+ and some other parts, based
on mrouted had original license Stanford.txt... and those and only those
parts (without other GPL) can be redistributed also under Stanford
license... This is how I understood it.
Post by Roberto
Post by Pali Rohár
Or why do you think that Stanford.txt applies to whole source code?
From COPYING I understood it differently, due to sections in
files, and also because on official webpage is written GPLv2+.
No, I don't think that Stanford.txt applies to whole source code. It
applies to *part* of the source code, that's what COPYING file
says.
It is very common for projects to be based on several other projects
and combined from multiple licenses, and it is not a problem if
licenses are compatible and DFSG-free.
So... question now is, can be whole igmpproxy (as one software package)
redistributed under GPLv2+? I think yes that yes.

Or... if you think that not, what is reason, and what needs to be done?

And can be included igmpproxy package into Debian?
--
Pali Rohár
***@gmail.com
Roberto
2016-11-24 18:29:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pali Rohár
I'm not saying that it invalidates. Just that I understood that whole
igmpproxy can be redistributed under GPLv2+ and some other parts, based
on mrouted had original license Stanford.txt... and those and only those
parts (without other GPL) can be redistributed also under Stanford
license... This is how I understood it.
OK, I think I understand it better now. We are basically saying the same
thing then, with only one difference.

If the original code of mrouted was included bundled in a separate
directory unmodified, or easily replaceable, then yes, you could replace
it with the new BSD version and then "relicense" all Stanford code under
BSD.

But, as far as I know, it has been modified and mixed into other
product, so in order to change the license of those parts, permission is
needed from all of its authors and contributors (which now includes
igmpproxy authors because the modifications are also copyrighted by
them). That's why in my first email I say that nobody else can switch the
license, even if mrouted switched long ago, the forked code is a different
program now. Sorry if it was not clear.
Post by Pali Rohár
So... question now is, can be whole igmpproxy (as one software package)
redistributed under GPLv2+? I think yes that yes.
I disagree, I'm not even sure that the Standford license is compatible
with the GPL, and even when all licenses are compatible, you should
still include all of them in debian/copyright file and should pass the
DFSG.

That is only my opinion, I would like to read opinions from more people
on this list.
Post by Pali Rohár
Or... if you think that not, what is reason, and what needs to be done?
And can be included igmpproxy package into Debian?
Probably asking the authors if they can please switch the license, it
will benefit not only Debian but anyone who downloads from upstream
source as well.
Pali Rohár
2016-11-26 11:54:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roberto
Post by Pali Rohár
I'm not saying that it invalidates. Just that I understood that
whole igmpproxy can be redistributed under GPLv2+ and some other
parts, based on mrouted had original license Stanford.txt... and
those and only those parts (without other GPL) can be
redistributed also under Stanford license... This is how I
understood it.
OK, I think I understand it better now. We are basically saying the
same thing then, with only one difference.
If the original code of mrouted was included bundled in a separate
directory unmodified, or easily replaceable, then yes, you could
replace it with the new BSD version and then "relicense" all
Stanford code under BSD.
But, as far as I know, it has been modified and mixed into other
product, so in order to change the license of those parts, permission
is needed from all of its authors and contributors (which now
includes igmpproxy authors because the modifications are also
copyrighted by them). That's why in my first email I say that nobody
else can switch the license, even if mrouted switched long ago, the
forked code is a different program now. Sorry if it was not clear.
So problem is that all contributors to igmpproxy contributed their code
under mix of GPLv2 and Stanford license?
Post by Roberto
Post by Pali Rohár
So... question now is, can be whole igmpproxy (as one software
package) redistributed under GPLv2+? I think yes that yes.
I disagree, I'm not even sure that the Standford license is
compatible with the GPL, and even when all licenses are compatible,
you should still include all of them in debian/copyright file and
should pass the DFSG.
Ok.
Post by Roberto
That is only my opinion, I would like to read opinions from more
people on this list.
Post by Pali Rohár
Or... if you think that not, what is reason, and what needs to be done?
And can be included igmpproxy package into Debian?
Probably asking the authors if they can please switch the license, it
will benefit not only Debian but anyone who downloads from upstream
source as well.
What do you mean with "switch the license"? From which and to which
license?
--
Pali Rohár
***@gmail.com
Pali Rohár
2016-12-02 13:53:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roberto
Post by Pali Rohár
And can be included igmpproxy package into Debian?
Probably asking the authors if they can please switch the license, it
will benefit not only Debian but anyone who downloads from upstream
source as well.
So... it is enough if all authors and contributors of igmpproxy agree
that their changes can be redistributed under GPLv2+?

Or do they need to "relicense" their changes also under new BSD Stanford
too?
--
Pali Rohár
***@gmail.com
Ian Jackson
2016-12-02 15:53:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pali Rohár
Post by Roberto
Post by Pali Rohár
And can be included igmpproxy package into Debian?
Probably asking the authors if they can please switch the license, it
will benefit not only Debian but anyone who downloads from upstream
source as well.
So... it is enough if all authors and contributors of igmpproxy agree
that their changes can be redistributed under GPLv2+?
Yes.
Post by Pali Rohár
Or do they need to "relicense" their changes also under new BSD Stanford
too?
No.

Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <***@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.
Roberto
2016-12-02 16:46:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pali Rohár
Post by Roberto
Post by Pali Rohár
And can be included igmpproxy package into Debian?
Probably asking the authors if they can please switch the license, it
will benefit not only Debian but anyone who downloads from upstream
source as well.
So... it is enough if all authors and contributors of igmpproxy agree
that their changes can be redistributed under GPLv2+?
Yes.
Post by Pali Rohár
Or do they need to "relicense" their changes also under new BSD Stanford
too?
No.
Ian.
I would prefer that the upstream does the license transition by
examining the situation and fixing all headers and documentation. They
(hopefully) know better about who modified the files and what licenses
the changes are in each case. Otherwise, even if they give you
permission to switch those files into the new license, each time a new
version of the upstream source is packaged it should be cleaned again by
the debian maintainer, or a notice should be included within
debian/copyright file saying all the references to the non-free license
scattered in the source code are not valid anymore. Neither of those
solutions seem the correct thing.

Two more things to notice:

1. As other have pointed, not all BSD licenses are compatible with the
GPL, it should be examined before assuming it is, if you can please
paste it to this list so other people can comment.

2. Is the change of license of mrouted effective from a specific
version, or are all older versions placed under the new license too? And
in the first case, what version forked igmpproxy from? Can those sources
be upgraded to the first BSD-licensed version?

Again, I think this should be fixed by upstream and only trying fo fix
it in the debian package if upstream does not want to cooperate.


In my experience, when a fork from a program (or library) is included
into another, it can be sometimes very difficult to fix things when the
original project switch to another (possibly better) license. igmpproxy
seems to be easier, but it should be done the correct way anyways.

As an example, it happend when idsoftware gave permission to relicense
Doom source into GPL. I was very active by then trying to sort all
things, but it was painful, with thousands of emails to all people who
modified the original sources. Many engines based on Doom were unable to
make the switch (zDoom, one of the more populars, it is still maintained
under the old non-free license because it will conflict with many other
pieces of code submitted under the older license), and many authors will
actually refuse to switch to the new license or prefer the older (yes,
some people explicitly refused to give permission to relicense their
changes into the new license).

So please, when code is touched by many different people, NEVER assume
that people will agree to a license change, even if the new license
seems clearly better.
Pali Rohár
2016-12-02 17:20:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roberto
Post by Pali Rohár
Post by Roberto
Post by Pali Rohár
And can be included igmpproxy package into Debian?
Probably asking the authors if they can please switch the
license, it will benefit not only Debian but anyone who
downloads from upstream source as well.
So... it is enough if all authors and contributors of igmpproxy
agree that their changes can be redistributed under GPLv2+?
Yes.
Post by Pali Rohár
Or do they need to "relicense" their changes also under new BSD
Stanford too?
No.
Ian.
I would prefer that the upstream does the license transition by
examining the situation and fixing all headers and documentation.
I'm already in contact with old/original maintainers of igmpproxy hosted
on sourceforge who maintained it until release of version 0.1.

Those maintainers are not interested in maintaining igmpproxy anymore
and they agreed that I can take over whole igmpproxy project. Currently
I have new repository on github (on old sourceforge project is written
by original maintainers that project was moved to my github repository),
but there is no new released version.

So last version is 0.1 -- that one from sourceforge. And this version I
packed for debian (on mentors).
Post by Roberto
They (hopefully) know better about who modified the files and what
licenses the changes are in each case. Otherwise, even if they give
you permission to switch those files into the new license, each time
a new version of the upstream source is packaged it should be
cleaned again by the debian maintainer, or a notice should be
included within debian/copyright file saying all the references to
the non-free license scattered in the source code are not valid
anymore. Neither of those solutions seem the correct thing.
Situation is: Original authors took some parts of mrouted code, modified
it and on top of it was created igmpproxy. So it is hard to tell which
parts of igmpproxy 0.1 comes from mrouted and in which form...
Post by Roberto
1. As other have pointed, not all BSD licenses are compatible with
the GPL, it should be examined before assuming it is, if you can
please paste it to this list so other people can comment.
Copyright © 2002 The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior
University
Permission is hereby granted to STANFORD's rights, free of charge, to
any person obtaining a copy of this Software and associated
documentation files ( "MROUTED"), to deal in MROUTED without
restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy,
modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of
MROUTED , and to permit persons to whom MROUTED is furnished to do so,
subject to the following conditions:
1) The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be
included in all copies or substantial portions of the MROUTED .
2) Neither the STANFORD name nor the names of its contributors may
be used in any promotional advertising or other promotional materials to
be disseminated to the public or any portion thereof nor to use the name
of any STANFORD faculty member, employee, or student, or any trademark,
service mark, trade name, or symbol of STANFORD or Stanford Hospitals
and Clinics, nor any that is associated with any of them, without
STANFORD's prior written consent. Any use of STANFORD's name shall be
limited to statements of fact and shall not imply endorsement of any
products or services.

3) MROUTED IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND,
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT.
IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY
CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT,
TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH MROUTED OR
THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE MROUTED .
Post by Roberto
2. Is the change of license of mrouted effective from a specific
version, or are all older versions placed under the new license too?
And in the first case, what version forked igmpproxy from? Can those
sources be upgraded to the first BSD-licensed version?
No idea if that new Stanford BSD license is locked to some specific
version of mrouted. In whole license is no information about version.
Just generic "MROUTED" name.

As original authors heavy modified original mrouted source and on top of
it created igmpproxy, I doubt that any "upgrade" is possible...

Theo de Raadt wrote about that license:

After 2 years, and more than 350 pieces of mail exchanged with "the
right people" at Stanford, we finally succeed at getting the parts of
the code they wrote to be released under a BSD license. The other
components were written by USC and Xerox (who were quick at helping, 5
days and 6 weeks if I recall). Of the ~200 authors we have contacted
regarding license issues, this institution has been THE WORST to deal
with, and to think -- this is an American University. How far the
edifice of educational freedom has fallen.... shame on you Stanford.
Post by Roberto
Again, I think this should be fixed by upstream and only trying fo
fix it in the debian package if upstream does not want to cooperate.
I will fix all licensing problems in my github repository (as this is
new "upstream"). But first I will try to make commonly used igmpproxy
version 0.1 to be GPLv2+ compatible.
Post by Roberto
In my experience, when a fork from a program (or library) is included
into another, it can be sometimes very difficult to fix things when
the original project switch to another (possibly better) license.
igmpproxy seems to be easier, but it should be done the correct way
anyways.
As an example, it happend when idsoftware gave permission to
relicense Doom source into GPL. I was very active by then trying to
sort all things, but it was painful, with thousands of emails to all
people who modified the original sources. Many engines based on Doom
were unable to make the switch (zDoom, one of the more populars, it
is still maintained under the old non-free license because it will
conflict with many other pieces of code submitted under the older
license), and many authors will actually refuse to switch to the new
license or prefer the older (yes, some people explicitly refused to
give permission to relicense their changes into the new license).
So please, when code is touched by many different people, NEVER
assume that people will agree to a license change, even if the new
license seems clearly better.
Ok.

List of contributors to version 0.1 is not so long. But contributors to
my github repository is bigger, so first step is to make original 0.1
version compatible. Next step would be other patches which are not part
of version 0.1.
--
Pali Rohár
***@gmail.com
Roberto
2016-12-02 18:58:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pali Rohár
I'm already in contact with old/original maintainers of igmpproxy hosted
on sourceforge who maintained it until release of version 0.1.
Those maintainers are not interested in maintaining igmpproxy anymore
and they agreed that I can take over whole igmpproxy project. Currently
I have new repository on github (on old sourceforge project is written
by original maintainers that project was moved to my github repository),
but there is no new released version.
That looks better, if you are now the maintainer and previous authors
are in contact, seems good.
Post by Pali Rohár
Post by Roberto
1. As other have pointed, not all BSD licenses are compatible with
the GPL, it should be examined before assuming it is, if you can
please paste it to this list so other people can comment.
Copyright © 2002 The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior
University
Permission is hereby granted to STANFORD's rights, free of charge, to
any person obtaining a copy of this Software and associated
documentation files ( "MROUTED"), to deal in MROUTED without
restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy,
modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of
MROUTED , and to permit persons to whom MROUTED is furnished to do so,
1) The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be
included in all copies or substantial portions of the MROUTED .
2) Neither the STANFORD name nor the names of its contributors may
be used in any promotional advertising or other promotional materials to
be disseminated to the public or any portion thereof nor to use the name
of any STANFORD faculty member, employee, or student, or any trademark,
service mark, trade name, or symbol of STANFORD or Stanford Hospitals
and Clinics, nor any that is associated with any of them, without
STANFORD's prior written consent. Any use of STANFORD's name shall be
limited to statements of fact and shall not imply endorsement of any
products or services.
3) MROUTED IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND,
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT.
IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY
CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT,
TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH MROUTED OR
THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE MROUTED .
I'm not good at spotting incompatibilities so I hope that other people
comment, to me it looks like a variation of the X11 license, AFAIK it is
good.
Pali Rohár
2016-12-06 17:45:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pali Rohár
Post by Roberto
Post by Pali Rohár
And can be included igmpproxy package into Debian?
Probably asking the authors if they can please switch the
license, it will benefit not only Debian but anyone who
downloads from upstream source as well.
So... it is enough if all authors and contributors of igmpproxy
agree that their changes can be redistributed under GPLv2+?
Yes.
Done. Now I all authors and contributors of igmpproxy 0.1 agreed that
their changes can be licensed under GPLv2+.

I updated igmpproxy on https://mentors.debian.net/package/igmpproxy and
included all licenses and agreements from emails into copyright file.

I hope that now it is correct and finally GPLv2+ compatible.

Can you review proposed package?
--
Pali Rohár
***@gmail.com
Ian Jackson
2016-12-10 10:41:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pali Rohár
Can you review proposed package?
Willdo.

Regards,
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <***@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.
Ian Jackson
2016-12-11 11:28:24 UTC
Permalink
https://ftp-master.debian.org/new/igmpproxy_0.1-1.html
Hrm. I didn't spot that. Well, anyway, thanks for your hard work.

As regards the package I didn't find anything terrible (although I
didn't quite finish everything I wanted to check - in particular I
haven't looked at the github project), but I did find twho things
that's are a slight problem:

AFAICT you think the overall resulting licence is GPLv2+ (that's
certainly what Johnny Egeland has written, and that's what you've
written in debian/copyright. But there are mentions of contributions
from Carsten Schill under GPLv2-only. Has anyone contacted Carsten
about this ?

And, there are a couple of files (`install-sh' and `missing') under
the MIT X Licence, which is not mentioned in debian/copyright. That is
a GPL-compatible licence so it's not a big problem, but the licence
should be mentioned in debian/copyright.


I also had some comments about the way the information was structured.


I don't think it is necessary (or indeed a good idea) to ship all of
the copyrightholders permission emails in debian/copyright.

The copyright file should IMO contain information about the actual
licence, and not contain out of date pieces of licence, or historical
information. It also does not need to contain records of all the
email communications with the licence holders.

IMO these should be kept in the source package, in case they are
needed, but they do not need to be in the .deb. The copyright file
should instead summarise the situation.

So I would suggest you put them in debian/ somewhere. COPYING.emails
or something maybe. The filename doesn't matter very much.


Conversely the source package should contain all the tracing
information we have about who approved what licence when. That
includes the emails I mention above, but also licence statements from
Stanford and OpenBSD etc.

As regards the Stanford relicensing: you have included two URLs. But
I think we should have the actual text of the relicense.

The best way to do this would probably be to use wget or curl to
download the HTML from the OpenBSD cvsweb page (which includes Theo de
Raadt's commit message), and maybe also save a copy of the diff which
comes out from this URL:
http://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/usr.sbin/mrouted/LICENSE.diff?r1=text&tr1=1.1&r2=text&tr2=1.2

I looked at the troglobit.com url you mention and I don't think the
text there really provides anything more interesting or useful,
although it might be worth mentioning somewhere in the source package
that that's the upstream.


And there is some out-of-date information in the source package that
could usefully be qualified:

The file Stanford.txt in the toplevel is no longer applicable.
Ideally it would be deleted, but our source formats do not support
thta. You should prefix it with a notice saying it does not apply,
and referring to a copy of the Stanford notice.

Was the file AUTHORS from mrouted ? I can't tell from the Debian
source package you have provided. I think you may want to patch it to
prefix a statement about its scope.

In projects now maintained primarily in a VCS and accepting
contributions, such AUTHORS files typically become very out of date.


Many of my comments would be worth feeding upstream. Upstream
probably don't want to be distributing this out of date information,
and I'm sure they would like to have a record of the relicensing
approval emails.


Finally, the package's debian/control Homepage field refers to
sourceforge but actually it's now on github AFAICT.


Regards,
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <***@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.
Pali Rohár
2016-12-11 11:56:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
https://ftp-master.debian.org/new/igmpproxy_0.1-1.html
Hrm. I didn't spot that. Well, anyway, thanks for your hard work.
As regards the package I didn't find anything terrible (although I
didn't quite finish everything I wanted to check - in particular I
haven't looked at the github project), but I did find twho things
AFAICT you think the overall resulting licence is GPLv2+ (that's
certainly what Johnny Egeland has written, and that's what you've
written in debian/copyright. But there are mentions of contributions
from Carsten Schill under GPLv2-only. Has anyone contacted Carsten
about this ?
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.
Post by Ian Jackson
And, there are a couple of files (`install-sh' and `missing') under
the MIT X Licence, which is not mentioned in debian/copyright. That
is a GPL-compatible licence so it's not a big problem, but the
licence should be mentioned in debian/copyright.
Ah, I forgot about it because those files were removed from git
repository "Remove stuff generated by autotools".
Post by Ian Jackson
I also had some comments about the way the information was
structured.
I don't think it is necessary (or indeed a good idea) to ship all of
the copyrightholders permission emails in debian/copyright.
The copyright file should IMO contain information about the actual
licence, and not contain out of date pieces of licence, or historical
information. It also does not need to contain records of all the
email communications with the licence holders.
IMO these should be kept in the source package, in case they are
needed, but they do not need to be in the .deb. The copyright file
should instead summarise the situation.
So I would suggest you put them in debian/ somewhere. COPYING.emails
or something maybe. The filename doesn't matter very much.
Ok, I can do that.
Post by Ian Jackson
Conversely the source package should contain all the tracing
information we have about who approved what licence when. That
includes the emails I mention above, but also licence statements from
Stanford and OpenBSD etc.
As regards the Stanford relicensing: you have included two URLs. But
I think we should have the actual text of the relicense.
The best way to do this would probably be to use wget or curl to
download the HTML from the OpenBSD cvsweb page (which includes Theo
de Raadt's commit message), and maybe also save a copy of the diff
http://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/usr.sbin/mrouted/LICENS
E.diff?r1=text&tr1=1.1&r2=text&tr2=1.2
I looked at the troglobit.com url you mention and I don't think the
text there really provides anything more interesting or useful,
although it might be worth mentioning somewhere in the source package
that that's the upstream.
Ok, I can include those files into github repository and will be part of
release tarball next time.
Post by Ian Jackson
And there is some out-of-date information in the source package that
The file Stanford.txt in the toplevel is no longer applicable.
Ideally it would be deleted, but our source formats do not support
thta. You should prefix it with a notice saying it does not apply,
and referring to a copy of the Stanford notice.
I understood that original mrouted code is dual-licensed: that
Stanford.txt and new BSD.
Post by Ian Jackson
Was the file AUTHORS from mrouted ? I can't tell from the Debian
source package you have provided. I think you may want to patch it
to prefix a statement about its scope.
In projects now maintained primarily in a VCS and accepting
contributions, such AUTHORS files typically become very out of date.
File AUTHORS comes from igmpproxy. In git is now deleted and for release
tarballs should be autogenerated from git by some script.
Post by Ian Jackson
Many of my comments would be worth feeding upstream. Upstream
probably don't want to be distributing this out of date information,
and I'm sure they would like to have a record of the relicensing
approval emails.
Yes, relicensing information should go to upstream git.
Post by Ian Jackson
Finally, the package's debian/control Homepage field refers to
sourceforge but actually it's now on github AFAICT.
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... 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.
--
Pali Rohár
***@gmail.com
Ian Jackson
2016-12-11 12:13:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pali Rohár
igmpproxy is derived work from the smcroute 0.92. Carsten Schill is
** 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.
Post by Pali Rohár
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!
Post by Pali Rohár
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 <***@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.
Pali Rohár
2016-12-11 12:28:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Pali Rohár
igmpproxy is derived work from the smcroute 0.92. Carsten Schill is
** 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.
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Pali Rohár
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!
Post by Pali Rohár
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.
Post by Ian Jackson
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.
Post by Ian Jackson
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
***@gmail.com
Ian Jackson
2016-12-11 13:01:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pali Rohár
Post by Ian Jackson
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.
Right.

I worry that new patches keep coming in and you're running to stand
still.

If this is a problem you can mark those licences as applying to
previous contributions, but clearly state that new contributions will
be treated as dual licenced: GPLv2+ and the applicable old licence(s).

Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <***@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.
Jessica Daugherty
2016-12-11 14:56:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pali Rohár
Post by Ian Jackson
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.
Right.



I worry that new patches keep coming in and you're running to stand

still.



If this is a problem you can mark those licences as applying to

previous contributions, but clearly state that new contributions will

be treated as dual licenced: GPLv2+ and the applicable old licence(s).



Ian.



--

Ian Jackson <***@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.
Pali Rohár
2016-12-13 14:23:06 UTC
Permalink
Anyway, what is with igmpproxy package now? I see it in new queue
https://ftp-master.debian.org/new/igmpproxy_0.1-1.html and would like to
have it in stretch. So IIRC it needs to be uploaded before Dec 26...
--
Pali Rohár
***@gmail.com
Pali Rohár
2017-12-23 08:56:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pali Rohár
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Pali Rohár
igmpproxy is derived work from the smcroute 0.92. Carsten Schill is
** 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.
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Pali Rohár
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!
Post by Pali Rohár
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.
Post by Ian Jackson
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.
Post by Ian Jackson
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
***@gmail.com
Dmitry Alexandrov
2016-11-24 19:07:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pali Rohár
I do not know, but mrouted was relicensed to BSD in 2003 and igmpproxy
started in 2005 (according to year in source files). And because BSD is
compatible with GPL, you can relicense those parts to GPL and adds your
own GPL code to it. Then whole package can be redistributed only under
GPL...
Of course, you can *not* do this. Nothing in any so called ‘BSD licence’ (and not any of them is GPL-compatible by the way) says that you have right to drop it in favour of GNU GPL. They are not GNU Lesser GPL or MPLv2. When two licences are ‘compatible’ that only means that works under them may be combined into a single work.
Pali Rohár
2016-11-26 11:46:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dmitry Alexandrov
Post by Pali Rohár
I do not know, but mrouted was relicensed to BSD in 2003 and
igmpproxy started in 2005 (according to year in source files). And
because BSD is compatible with GPL, you can relicense those parts
to GPL and adds your own GPL code to it. Then whole package can be
redistributed only under GPL...
Of course, you can *not* do this.
Why? I think you must redistribute whole program as GPL. Section 2. of
GPLv2 contains:

===
But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a
work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the
terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to
the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who
wrote it.
===

This does not mean that some parts cannot be still distributed under
other license (e.g. mrouted parts under Stanford or BSD), but from that
section I understood that whole igmpproxy can be distributed only under
GPLv2.
--
Pali Rohár
***@gmail.com
Roberto
2016-11-26 12:23:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pali Rohár
Post by Dmitry Alexandrov
Post by Pali Rohár
I do not know, but mrouted was relicensed to BSD in 2003 and
igmpproxy started in 2005 (according to year in source files). And
because BSD is compatible with GPL, you can relicense those parts
to GPL and adds your own GPL code to it. Then whole package can be
redistributed only under GPL...
Of course, you can *not* do this.
Why? I think you must redistribute whole program as GPL. Section 2. of
===
But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a
work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the
terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to
the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who
wrote it.
===
This does not mean that some parts cannot be still distributed under
other license (e.g. mrouted parts under Stanford or BSD), but from that
section I understood that whole igmpproxy can be distributed only under
GPLv2.
That's not what the license says. I know that licensing can be confusing
and tedious and I'm not very good at expressing myself in english...
please read the official GPL FAQ, it is very good and it may help you to
understand better the meaning of the GPL license:

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
Roberto
2016-11-24 20:10:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roberto
Post by Pali Rohár
I'm not saying that it invalidates. Just that I understood that whole
igmpproxy can be redistributed under GPLv2+ and some other parts, based
on mrouted had original license Stanford.txt... and those and only those
parts (without other GPL) can be redistributed also under Stanford
license... This is how I understood it.
OK, I think I understand it better now. We are basically saying the same
thing then, with only one difference.
I reply myself... actually I think I have not understood your statements
correctly, reading it again it seems that you think that the mrouted
code is somewhat dual licensed with GPL or Stanford.txt and you can
choose which one to apply. That's not the case, when combined into a GPL
program both licenses are active and must be obeyed *at the same time*
(supposing that they are compatible, which I doubt).
Dmitry Alexandrov
2016-11-25 13:56:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roberto
I reply myself... actually I think I have not understood your statements
correctly, reading it again it seems that you think that the mrouted
code is somewhat dual licensed with GPL or Stanford.txt and you can
choose which one to apply. That's not the case, when combined into a GPL
program both licenses are active and must be obeyed *at the same time*
(supposing that they are compatible, which I doubt).
For what it’s worth, I am pretty sure that any version GNU GPL and ‘Stanford.txt’ are *not* compatible because of jurisdiction choice clause of the latter:

,----
| 6. This agreement shall be construed, interpreted and applied in
| accordance with the State of California and any legal action arising
| out of this Agreement or use of the Program shall be filed in a court
| in the State of California.
`----

However, in case authors of igmpproxy are not bound by someone else’s copyleft (I did not check that), that should not be a unresolvable problem — they are able to give an excetion to allow such a combination. One might even argue that by distributing their work they had given an implicit exception already.
Pali Rohár
2016-11-26 11:51:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roberto
I reply myself... actually I think I have not understood your
statements correctly, reading it again it seems that you think
that the mrouted code is somewhat dual licensed with GPL or
Stanford.txt and you can choose which one to apply. That's not the
case, when combined into a GPL program both licenses are active
and must be obeyed *at the same time* (supposing that they are
compatible, which I doubt).
For what it’s worth, I am pretty sure that any version GNU GPL and
‘Stanford.txt’ are *not* compatible because of jurisdiction choice
,----
| 6. This agreement shall be construed, interpreted and applied in
| accordance with the State of California and any legal action
| arising out of this Agreement or use of the Program shall be filed
| in a court in the State of California.
`----
Yes, but mrouted was release/relicensed under less restrictive BSD
license too.

As wrote in one of first emails, here is link to text of new mrouted
license:

http://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/usr.sbin/mrouted/LICENSE
However, in case authors of igmpproxy are not bound by someone else’s
copyleft (I did not check that), that should not be a unresolvable
problem — they are able to give an excetion to allow such a
combination. One might even argue that by distributing their work
they had given an implicit exception already.
So... what needs to be done that igmpproxy could be redistributed as one
package under GPLv2+ license?
--
Pali Rohár
***@gmail.com
Roberto
2016-11-26 12:25:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pali Rohár
Yes, but mrouted was release/relicensed under less restrictive BSD
license too.
As wrote in one of first emails, here is link to text of new mrouted
http://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/usr.sbin/mrouted/LICENSE
mrouted relicensed its code, but the igmpproxy fork did not, and they
are not the same thing anymore. I've already answered to this in my
first email in this thread, please read it again.
Ben Finney
2016-11-27 00:01:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pali Rohár
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
<URL:https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/mrouted>
“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?
Post by Pali Rohár
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?
Post by Pali Rohár
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
Loading...