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 > > >

Re: Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?

Получить Outlook для Android

Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?

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

Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?

On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 8:02 AM Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote: Pali Rohár writes ("Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?"): > On Sunday 11 December 2016 13:13:08 Ian Jackson wrote: > > Historical information can be retained in the git history, and

Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?

Pali Rohár writes ("Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?"): > On Sunday 11 December 2016 13:13:08 Ian Jackson wrote: > > Historical information can be retained in the git history, and in a > > document which explains the authorship and licensing history of > > igmpproxy.

Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?

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

Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?

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

Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?

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, anyway, thanks for your hard work. As regards the package I didn't find anything terrible (a

Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?

Pali Rohár writes ("Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?"): > Can you review proposed package? Willdo. Regards, Ian. -- Ian Jackson <ijack...@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 add

Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?

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

Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?

On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 06:20:24PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote: > 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

Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?

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

Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?

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 24, 2016 at 06:36:53PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote: > > > &g

Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?

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 be included igmpproxy package into Debian? > > > > Probably aski

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 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

Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?

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

Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?

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: > >

Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?

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

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: > > 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

Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?

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

Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?

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

Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?

> 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 >

Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?

On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 07:29:21PM +0100, 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

Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?

> 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

Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?

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

Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?

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 linked says "Original license

Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?

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 linked says "Original license can be found > > in the Stanford.txt file". It says nothing

Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?

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 > > though igmpproxy is licensed and

Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?

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 though > igmpproxy is licensed and distributed under GPL. If it was legal and I > correct I do not know...

Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?

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 what is worth, my point

Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?

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 what is worth, my point of view follows: In general, when a program is relicensed,

Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?

Pali Rohár writes ("Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?"): > Looks like that same question was already asked in 2009, but it is without > answer. Can you look at it? . > On Sunday 20 Jun 2009 20:54:12 Santiago Garcia Mantinan <ma...@debian.org> > wrote: > > I w

Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?

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? On Sunday 20