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 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... > > 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 <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 address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.