> 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 > program both licenses are active and must be obeyed *at the same time* > (supposing that they are compatible, which I doubt).
For what it’s worth, I am pretty sure that any version GNU GPL and ‘Stanford.txt’ are *not* compatible because of jurisdiction choice clause of the latter: ,---- | 6. This agreement shall be construed, interpreted and applied in | accordance with the State of California and any legal action arising | out of this Agreement or use of the Program shall be filed in a court | in the State of California. `---- However, in case authors of igmpproxy are not bound by someone else’s copyleft (I did not check that), that should not be a unresolvable problem — they are able to give an excetion to allow such a combination. One might even argue that by distributing their work they had given an implicit exception already.
