On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 06:36:53PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote: > 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... 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. > 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.
