Pali Rohár writes:
> 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
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/mrouted>
“send a copy to Stanford
On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 12:51:52PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
> 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/L
On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 12:46:45PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
> On Thursday 24 November 2016 20:07:43 you wrote:
> > > 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 ca
On Thursday 24 November 2016 19:29:21 Roberto wrote:
> 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 licens
On Friday 25 November 2016 14:56:34 Dmitry Alexandrov wrote:
> > 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
On Thursday 24 November 2016 20:07:43 you wrote:
> > 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.
6 matches
Mail list logo
