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 > > > author of smcroute. I checked license of smcroute 0.92 and it > > > specify: > > > > > > ** This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or > > > modify ** it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as > > > published by ** the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of > > > the License, or ** (at your option) any later version. > > > > > > So I have not contacted him as he already clarify his work under > > > GPLv2+. In COPYING of igmpproxy is just GPLv2 for his work, but it > > > is probably mistake in COPYING file as I was not able to find any > > > information that smcroute 0.92 was under different license as > > > GPLv2+ in past. > > > > Ah. Right. Jolly good. > > > > I think the problem is then just that the information isn't clear in > > the source package. > > Yes, I see it same. > > > > I put there sourceforge homepage as I took last release of > > > igmpproxy which comes from sourceforge. On github is not new > > > release yet, but there are new commits and patches which are not > > > part of 0.1. Now I'm trying to collect GPLv2+ relicense > > > permissions for those patches... > > > > Oh dear! > > > > > So version on github is not GPLv2+ compatible, but that on > > > sourceforge should be now... Once version on github will be license > > > OK, I could release new version on github and also update > > > debian/control Homepage field. > > > > I think you and upstream need to work together urgently to make sure > > that the upstream package has a clear and consistent licence. > > Otherwise you will continually be playing catch-up like this... > > If you look at https://sourceforge.net/projects/igmpproxy/ you should > see blue notice: "As of 2016-03-29, this project may now be found at > https://github.com/pali/igmpproxy." > > That github repository is my and original sourceforge maintainers gave > me maintaining igmpproxy project. > > I'm already trying to fix all those licensing problems, but it will take > some time to contact all affected persons... > > At least now we have version 0.1 hopefully GPLv2+ compatible. > > > I would recommend, in the upstream package, removing all the > > out-of-date licences and copyright notices. The copyright notices > > should all say GPLv2+. > > Yes, I will do that, but first I need to collect permissions from all > people whose patches are in upstream git repository. After that I can > get rid of that Stanford license. > > > Historical information can be retained in the git history, and in a > > document which explains the authorship and licensing history of > > igmpproxy. > > Yes, but now, for version in upstream git they are not historical yet.
Hi! I got permissions for all authors & contributors of igmpproxy for all patches in git igmpproxy repository to relicense their changes to GPLv2+. Therefore I released new igmpproxy version 0.2 which is now fully GPLv2+ compatible: https://github.com/pali/igmpproxy/releases/tag/0.2 And also I put updated package to mentors: https://mentors.debian.net/package/igmpproxy Ian, would you review new debian package? Hopefully this licensing problem is now solved. -- Pali Rohár pali.ro...@gmail.com