ng library.
--
Pali Rohár
pali.ro...@gmail.com
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
> > >
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
pali.ro...@gmail.com
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally
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:
&g
On Sunday 11 December 2016 12:28:24 Ian Jackson wrote:
> Pali Rohár writes ("Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?"):
> > Ok, package is already in new queue:
> > https://ftp-master.debian.org/new/igmpproxy_0.1-1.html
>
> Hrm. I didn't spot that. Well, an
On Friday 02 December 2016 16:53:53 Ian Jackson wrote:
> Pali Rohár writes ("Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?"):
> > On Thursday 24 November 2016 19:29:21 Roberto wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 06:36:53PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > > And can b
On Friday 02 December 2016 17:46:40 Roberto wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 03:53:53PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Pali Rohár writes ("Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?"):
> > > On Thursday 24 November 2016 19:29:21 Roberto wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Nov
On Thursday 24 November 2016 19:29:21 Roberto wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 06:36:53PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > And can be included igmpproxy package into Debian?
>
> Probably asking the authors if they can please switch the license, it
> will benefit not only Deb
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
ven 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
pali.ro...@gmail.com
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
d 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
pali.ro...@gmail.com
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On Thursday 24 November 2016 18:21:07 Roberto wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 05:36:57PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > On Tuesday 22 November 2016 16:17:21 Roberto wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 02:42:34PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > The COPYING file that you li
On Tuesday 22 November 2016 16:17:21 Roberto wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 02:42:34PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
> [...]
>
> > Note that smcroute 0.92 was accepted into Debian [4].
> >
> > Due to above GPL facts in igmpproxy files I think that everybody
>
On Tuesday 22 November 2016 14:20:36 Roberto wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 02:52:33PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > Because igmpproxy is based on mrouted originally licensed under Stanford
> > and later relicensed under BSD, I would consider it DFSG compliant...
>
> For wh
is there any problem?
PS: I'm not subscribed to list, so CC me.
--
Pali Rohár
pali.ro...@gmail.com
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
15 matches
Mail list logo
