Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?

[Pali Rohár]

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 out-of-date licences and copyright notices.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

Re: Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?

[rymorova . vlada]

Получить Outlook для Android

Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?

[Pali Rohár]

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 signed message part.

Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?

[Jessica Daugherty]

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 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.



Right.



I worry that new patches keep coming in and you're running to stand

still.



If this is a problem you can mark those licences as applying to

previous contributions, but clearly state that new contributions will

be treated as dual licenced: GPLv2+ and the applicable old licence(s).



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.

Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?

[Ian Jackson]

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.
> 
> Yes, but now, for version in upstream git they are not historical yet.

Right.

I worry that new patches keep coming in and you're running to stand
still.

If this is a problem you can mark those licences as applying to
previous contributions, but clearly state that new contributions will
be treated as dual licenced: GPLv2+ and the applicable old licence(s).

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.

Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?

[Pali Rohár]

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.

-- 
Pali Rohár
pali.ro...@gmail.com


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?

[Pali Rohár]

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, anyway, thanks for your hard work.
> 
> As regards the package I didn't find anything terrible (although I
> didn't quite finish everything I wanted to check - in particular I
> haven't looked at the github project), but I did find twho things
> that's are a slight problem:
> 
> AFAICT you think the overall resulting licence is GPLv2+ (that's
> certainly what Johnny Egeland has written, and that's what you've
> written in debian/copyright.  But there are mentions of contributions
> from Carsten Schill under GPLv2-only.  Has anyone contacted Carsten
> about this ?

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.

> And, there are a couple of files (`install-sh' and `missing') under
> the MIT X Licence, which is not mentioned in debian/copyright.  That
> is a GPL-compatible licence so it's not a big problem, but the
> licence should be mentioned in debian/copyright.

Ah, I forgot about it because those files were removed from git 
repository "Remove stuff generated by autotools".

> I also had some comments about the way the information was
> structured.
> 
> 
> I don't think it is necessary (or indeed a good idea) to ship all of
> the copyrightholders permission emails in debian/copyright.
> 
> The copyright file should IMO contain information about the actual
> licence, and not contain out of date pieces of licence, or historical
> information.  It also does not need to contain records of all the
> email communications with the licence holders.
> 
> IMO these should be kept in the source package, in case they are
> needed, but they do not need to be in the .deb.  The copyright file
> should instead summarise the situation.
> 
> So I would suggest you put them in debian/ somewhere.  COPYING.emails
> or something maybe.  The filename doesn't matter very much.

Ok, I can do that.

> Conversely the source package should contain all the tracing
> information we have about who approved what licence when.  That
> includes the emails I mention above, but also licence statements from
> Stanford and OpenBSD etc.
> 
> As regards the Stanford relicensing: you have included two URLs.  But
> I think we should have the actual text of the relicense.
> 
> The best way to do this would probably be to use wget or curl to
> download the HTML from the OpenBSD cvsweb page (which includes Theo
> de Raadt's commit message), and maybe also save a copy of the diff
> which comes out from this URL:
>  
> http://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/usr.sbin/mrouted/LICENS
> E.diff?r1=text=1.1=text=1.2
> 
> I looked at the troglobit.com url you mention and I don't think the
> text there really provides anything more interesting or useful,
> although it might be worth mentioning somewhere in the source package
> that that's the upstream.

Ok, I can include those files into github repository and will be part of 
release tarball next time.

> And there is some out-of-date information in the source package that
> could usefully be qualified:
> 
> The file Stanford.txt in the toplevel is no longer applicable.
> Ideally it would be deleted, but our source formats do not support
> thta.  You should prefix it with a notice saying it does not apply,
> and referring to a copy of the Stanford notice.

I understood that original mrouted code is dual-licensed: that 
Stanford.txt and new BSD.

> Was the file AUTHORS from mrouted ?  I can't tell from the Debian
> source package you have provided.  I think you may want to patch it
> to prefix a statement about its scope.
> 
> In projects now maintained primarily in a VCS and accepting
> contributions, such AUTHORS files typically become very out of date.

File AUTHORS comes from igmpproxy. In git is now deleted and for release 
tarballs should be autogenerated from git by some script.

> Many of my comments would be worth feeding upstream.  Upstream
> probably don't want to be dis

Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?

[Ian Jackson]

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 (although I
didn't quite finish everything I wanted to check - in particular I
haven't looked at the github project), but I did find twho things
that's are a slight problem:

AFAICT you think the overall resulting licence is GPLv2+ (that's
certainly what Johnny Egeland has written, and that's what you've
written in debian/copyright.  But there are mentions of contributions
from Carsten Schill under GPLv2-only.  Has anyone contacted Carsten
about this ?

And, there are a couple of files (`install-sh' and `missing') under
the MIT X Licence, which is not mentioned in debian/copyright.  That is
a GPL-compatible licence so it's not a big problem, but the licence
should be mentioned in debian/copyright.


I also had some comments about the way the information was structured.


I don't think it is necessary (or indeed a good idea) to ship all of
the copyrightholders permission emails in debian/copyright.

The copyright file should IMO contain information about the actual
licence, and not contain out of date pieces of licence, or historical
information.  It also does not need to contain records of all the
email communications with the licence holders.

IMO these should be kept in the source package, in case they are
needed, but they do not need to be in the .deb.  The copyright file
should instead summarise the situation.

So I would suggest you put them in debian/ somewhere.  COPYING.emails
or something maybe.  The filename doesn't matter very much.


Conversely the source package should contain all the tracing
information we have about who approved what licence when.  That
includes the emails I mention above, but also licence statements from
Stanford and OpenBSD etc.

As regards the Stanford relicensing: you have included two URLs.  But
I think we should have the actual text of the relicense.

The best way to do this would probably be to use wget or curl to
download the HTML from the OpenBSD cvsweb page (which includes Theo de
Raadt's commit message), and maybe also save a copy of the diff which
comes out from this URL:
  
http://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/usr.sbin/mrouted/LICENSE.diff?r1=text=1.1=text=1.2

I looked at the troglobit.com url you mention and I don't think the
text there really provides anything more interesting or useful,
although it might be worth mentioning somewhere in the source package
that that's the upstream.


And there is some out-of-date information in the source package that
could usefully be qualified:

The file Stanford.txt in the toplevel is no longer applicable.
Ideally it would be deleted, but our source formats do not support
thta.  You should prefix it with a notice saying it does not apply,
and referring to a copy of the Stanford notice.

Was the file AUTHORS from mrouted ?  I can't tell from the Debian
source package you have provided.  I think you may want to patch it to
prefix a statement about its scope.

In projects now maintained primarily in a VCS and accepting
contributions, such AUTHORS files typically become very out of date.


Many of my comments would be worth feeding upstream.  Upstream
probably don't want to be distributing this out of date information,
and I'm sure they would like to have a record of the relicensing
approval emails.


Finally, the package's debian/control Homepage field refers to
sourceforge but actually it's now on github AFAICT.


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 address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?

[Ian Jackson]

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 address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?

[Pali Rohár]

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 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
> > > downloads from upstream source as well.
> > 
> > So... it is enough if all authors and contributors of igmpproxy
> > agree that their changes can be redistributed under GPLv2+?
> 
> Yes.

Done. Now I all authors and contributors of igmpproxy 0.1 agreed that 
their changes can be licensed under GPLv2+.

I updated igmpproxy on https://mentors.debian.net/package/igmpproxy and 
included all licenses and agreements from emails into copyright file.

I hope that now it is correct and finally GPLv2+ compatible.

Can you review proposed package?

-- 
Pali Rohár
pali.ro...@gmail.com


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?

[Roberto]

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 that I can take over whole igmpproxy project. Currently 
> I have new repository on github (on old sourceforge project is written 
> by original maintainers that project was moved to my github repository), 
> but there is no new released version.

That looks better, if you are now the maintainer and previous authors
are in contact, seems good.

> > 1. As other have pointed, not all BSD licenses are compatible with
> > the GPL, it should be examined before assuming it is, if you can
> > please paste it to this list so other people can comment.
> 
> Copyright © 2002 The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior
> University
> Permission is hereby granted to STANFORD's rights, free of charge, to 
> any person obtaining a copy of this Software and associated 
> documentation files ( "MROUTED"), to deal in MROUTED without 
> restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, 
> modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of 
> MROUTED , and to permit persons to whom MROUTED is furnished to do so, 
> subject to the following conditions:
> 1)  The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be
> included in all copies or substantial portions of the MROUTED .
> 2)  Neither the STANFORD name nor the names of its contributors may 
> be used in any promotional advertising or other promotional materials to 
> be disseminated to the public or any portion thereof nor to use the name 
> of any STANFORD faculty member, employee, or student, or any trademark,
> service mark, trade name, or symbol of STANFORD or Stanford Hospitals 
> and Clinics, nor any that is associated with any of them, without 
> STANFORD's prior written consent.  Any use of STANFORD's name shall be 
> limited to statements of fact and shall not imply endorsement of any 
> products or services.
> 
> 3)  MROUTED IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, 
> EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF 
> MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. 
> IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY 
> CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, 
> TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH MROUTED OR 
> THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE MROUTED .

I'm not good at spotting incompatibilities so I hope that other people
comment, to me it looks like a variation of the X11 license, AFAIK it is
good.

Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?

[Pali Rohár]

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 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
> > > > downloads from upstream source as well.
> > > 
> > > So... it is enough if all authors and contributors of igmpproxy
> > > agree that their changes can be redistributed under GPLv2+?
> > 
> > Yes.
> > 
> > > Or do they need to "relicense" their changes also under new BSD
> > > Stanford too?
> > 
> > No.
> > 
> > Ian.
> 
> I would prefer that the upstream does the license transition by
> examining the situation and fixing all headers and documentation.

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 that I can take over whole igmpproxy project. Currently 
I have new repository on github (on old sourceforge project is written 
by original maintainers that project was moved to my github repository), 
but there is no new released version.

So last version is 0.1 -- that one from sourceforge. And this version I 
packed for debian (on mentors).

> They (hopefully) know better about who modified the files and what
> licenses the changes are in each case. Otherwise, even if they give
> you permission to switch those files into the new license, each time
> a new version of the upstream source is packaged it should be
> cleaned again by the debian maintainer, or a notice should be
> included within debian/copyright file saying all the references to
> the non-free license scattered in the source code are not valid
> anymore. Neither of those solutions seem the correct thing.

Situation is: Original authors took some parts of mrouted code, modified 
it and on top of it was created igmpproxy. So it is hard to tell which 
parts of igmpproxy 0.1 comes from mrouted and in which form...

> Two more things to notice:
> 
> 1. As other have pointed, not all BSD licenses are compatible with
> the GPL, it should be examined before assuming it is, if you can
> please paste it to this list so other people can comment.

Copyright © 2002 The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior
University
Permission is hereby granted to STANFORD's rights, free of charge, to 
any person obtaining a copy of this Software and associated 
documentation files ( "MROUTED"), to deal in MROUTED without 
restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, 
modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of 
MROUTED , and to permit persons to whom MROUTED is furnished to do so, 
subject to the following conditions:
1)  The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be
included in all copies or substantial portions of the MROUTED .
2)  Neither the STANFORD name nor the names of its contributors may 
be used in any promotional advertising or other promotional materials to 
be disseminated to the public or any portion thereof nor to use the name 
of any STANFORD faculty member, employee, or student, or any trademark,
service mark, trade name, or symbol of STANFORD or Stanford Hospitals 
and Clinics, nor any that is associated with any of them, without 
STANFORD's prior written consent.  Any use of STANFORD's name shall be 
limited to statements of fact and shall not imply endorsement of any 
products or services.

3)  MROUTED IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, 
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF 
MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. 
IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY 
CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, 
TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH MROUTED OR 
THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE MROUTED .

> 2. Is the change of license of mrouted effective from a specific
> version, or are all older versions placed under the new license too?
> And in the first case, what version forked igmpproxy from? Can those
> sources be upgraded to the first BSD-licensed version?

No idea if that new Stanford BSD license is locked to some specific 
version of mrouted. In whole license is no information about version. 
Just generic "MROUTED" name.

As original authors heavy modified o

Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?

[Roberto]

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:
> > > > 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 downloads from upstream
> > > source as well.
> > 
> > So... it is enough if all authors and contributors of igmpproxy agree 
> > that their changes can be redistributed under GPLv2+?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> > Or do they need to "relicense" their changes also under new BSD Stanford 
> > too?
> 
> No.
> 
> Ian.


I would prefer that the upstream does the license transition by
examining the situation and fixing all headers and documentation. They
(hopefully) know better about who modified the files and what licenses
the changes are in each case. Otherwise, even if they give you
permission to switch those files into the new license, each time a new
version of the upstream source is packaged it should be cleaned again by
the debian maintainer, or a notice should be included within
debian/copyright file saying all the references to the non-free license
scattered in the source code are not valid anymore. Neither of those
solutions seem the correct thing.

Two more things to notice:

1. As other have pointed, not all BSD licenses are compatible with the
GPL, it should be examined before assuming it is, if you can please
paste it to this list so other people can comment.

2. Is the change of license of mrouted effective from a specific
version, or are all older versions placed under the new license too? And
in the first case, what version forked igmpproxy from? Can those sources
be upgraded to the first BSD-licensed version?

Again, I think this should be fixed by upstream and only trying fo fix
it in the debian package if upstream does not want to cooperate.


In my experience, when a fork from a program (or library) is included
into another, it can be sometimes very difficult to fix things when the
original project switch to another (possibly better) license. igmpproxy
seems to be easier, but it should be done the correct way anyways.

As an example, it happend when idsoftware gave permission to relicense
Doom source into GPL. I was very active by then trying to sort all
things, but it was painful, with thousands of emails to all people who
modified the original sources. Many engines based on Doom were unable to
make the switch (zDoom, one of the more populars, it is still maintained
under the old non-free license because it will conflict with many other
pieces of code submitted under the older license), and many authors will
actually refuse to switch to the new license or prefer the older (yes,
some people explicitly refused to give permission to relicense their
changes into the new license).

So please, when code is touched by many different people, NEVER assume
that people will agree to a license change, even if the new license
seems clearly better.

Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?

[Ian Jackson]

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 asking the authors if they can please switch the license, it
> > will benefit not only Debian but anyone who downloads from upstream
> > source as well.
> 
> So... it is enough if all authors and contributors of igmpproxy agree 
> that their changes can be redistributed under GPLv2+?

Yes.

> Or do they need to "relicense" their changes also under new BSD Stanford 
> too?

No.

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.

Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?

[Pali Rohár]

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 downloads from upstream
> source as well.

So... it is enough if all authors and contributors of igmpproxy agree 
that their changes can be redistributed under GPLv2+?

Or do they need to "relicense" their changes also under new BSD Stanford 
too?

-- 
Pali Rohár
pali.ro...@gmail.com


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?

[Ben Finney]

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

“send a copy to Stanford when you redistribute” conditions.

When that third party redistributed it (modified or not), everyone who
received it from them has license under those same terms.

So ‘igmpproxy’ also has components under those non-free terms. What
parts of the work are under those non-free conditions by copyright
holders *other than* Stanford?

> and later relicensed under BSD

Stanford's new grant of license can AIUI only have effect on their
copyright claim in the work. It does not change the existing grants of
license from other copyright holders, and Stanford certainly cannot
grant license on behalf of those copyright holders.

The question I don't see answered is: what modifications are there in
‘igmpproxy’ from copyright holders other than Stanford, which are not
affected by Stanford's later license grant?

> PS: I'm not subscribed to list, so CC me.

This discussion is long-running enough that I would recommend
participants should subscribe to the forum where it's happening.

-- 
 \  “Jury: A group of 12 people, who, having lied to the judge |
  `\   about their health, hearing, and business engagements, have |
_o__)   failed to fool him.” —Henry L. Mencken |
Ben Finney

Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?

[Roberto]

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:
> 
> http://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/usr.sbin/mrouted/LICENSE


mrouted relicensed its code, but the igmpproxy fork did not, and they
are not the same thing anymore. I've already answered to this in my
first email in this thread, please read it again.

Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?

[Roberto]

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 can relicense those parts
> > > to GPL and adds your own GPL code to it. Then whole package can be
> > > redistributed only under GPL...
> > 
> > Of course, you can *not* do this.
> 
> Why? I think you must redistribute whole program as GPL. Section 2. of 
> GPLv2 contains:
> 
> ===
> But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a 
> work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the 
> terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to 
> the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who 
> wrote it.
> ===
> 
> This does not mean that some parts cannot be still distributed 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.


That's not what the license says. I know that licensing can be confusing
and tedious and I'm not very good at expressing myself in english...
please read the official GPL FAQ, it is very good and it may help you to
understand better the meaning of the GPL license:

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html

Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?

[Pali Rohár]

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 license Stanford.txt... and
> > those and only those parts (without other GPL) can be
> > redistributed also under Stanford license... This is how I
> > understood it.
> 
> OK, I think I understand it better now. We are basically saying the
> same thing then, with only one difference.
> 
> If the original code of mrouted was included bundled in a separate
> directory unmodified, or easily replaceable, then yes, you could
> replace it with the new BSD version and then "relicense" all
> Stanford code under BSD.
> 
> But, as far as I know, it has been modified and mixed into other
> product, so in order to change the license of those parts, permission
> is needed from all of its authors and contributors (which now
> includes igmpproxy authors because the modifications are also
> copyrighted by them). That's why in my first email I say that nobody
> else can switch the license, even if mrouted switched long ago, the
> forked code is a different program now. Sorry if it was not clear.

So problem is that all contributors to igmpproxy contributed their code 
under mix of GPLv2 and Stanford license?

> > So... question now is, can be whole igmpproxy (as one software
> > package) redistributed under GPLv2+? I think yes that yes.
> 
> I disagree, I'm not even sure that the Standford license is
> compatible with the GPL, and even when all licenses are compatible,
> you should still include all of them in debian/copyright file and
> should pass the DFSG.

Ok.

> That is only my opinion, I would like to read opinions from more
> people on this list.
> 
> > Or... if you think that not, what is reason, and what needs to be
> > done?
> > 
> > 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 downloads from upstream
> source as well.

What do you mean with "switch the license"? From which and to which 
license?

-- 
Pali Rohár
pali.ro...@gmail.com


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?

[Pali Rohár]

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 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.
> 
> `

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:

http://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/usr.sbin/mrouted/LICENSE

> 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.

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.

Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?

[Pali Rohár]

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 it. Then whole package can be
> > redistributed only under GPL...
> 
> Of course, you can *not* do this.

Why? I think you must redistribute whole program as GPL. Section 2. of 
GPLv2 contains:

===
But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a 
work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the 
terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to 
the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who 
wrote it.
===

This does not mean that some parts cannot be still distributed 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.

Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?

[Dmitry Alexandrov]

> 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.

Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?

[Roberto]

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 license Stanford.txt... and those and only those 
> > parts (without other GPL) can be redistributed also under Stanford 
> > license... This is how I understood it.
> 
> OK, I think I understand it better now. We are basically saying the same
> thing then, with only one difference.

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).

Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?

[Dmitry Alexandrov]

> 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 
> GPL...

Of course, you can *not* do this.  Nothing in any so called ‘BSD licence’ (and 
not any of them is GPL-compatible by the way) says that you have right to drop 
it in favour of GNU GPL.  They are not GNU Lesser GPL or MPLv2.  When two 
licences are ‘compatible’ that only means that works under them may be combined 
into a single work.

Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?

[Roberto]

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 (without other GPL) can be redistributed also under Stanford 
> license... This is how I understood it.

OK, I think I understand it better now. We are basically saying the same
thing then, with only one difference.

If the original code of mrouted was included bundled in a separate
directory unmodified, or easily replaceable, then yes, you could replace
it with the new BSD version and then "relicense" all Stanford code under
BSD.

But, as far as I know, it has been modified and mixed into other
product, so in order to change the license of those parts, permission is
needed from all of its authors and contributors (which now includes
igmpproxy authors because the modifications are also copyrighted by
them). That's why in my first email I say that nobody else can switch the
license, even if mrouted switched long ago, the forked code is a different
program now. Sorry if it was not clear.

> So... question now is, can be whole igmpproxy (as one software package) 
> redistributed under GPLv2+? I think yes that yes.

I disagree, I'm not even sure that the Standford license is compatible
with the GPL, and even when all licenses are compatible, you should
still include all of them in debian/copyright file and should pass the
DFSG.

That is only my opinion, I would like to read opinions from more people
on this list.


> Or... if you think that not, what is reason, and what needs to be done?
> 
> 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 downloads from upstream
source as well.

Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?

[Pali Rohár]

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 can be
> > > found in the Stanford.txt file". It says nothing about the BSD
> > > license.
> > 
> > But this statement is under mrouted section in COPYING file. Under
> > igmpproxy section is written GPLv2+ license.
> 
> I don't understand this phrase, do you mean that igmpproxy authors
> relicensed the mrouted source code under the GPLv2+ license? And how
> if would be possible

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 
GPL...

> > > The *.c files also point to the Standford.txt license.
> > 
> > And again in *.c files is GPLv2+ license with information that
> > igmpproxy is based on smcroute (licensed under GPLv2) and mrouted
> > which *original* license was Stanford.
> 
> And again I'm not sure that I'm correctly understanding you. If you
> are saying that the GPL somewhat invalidates other licenses and now
> the code has become GPL because it was mixed with other GPL code
> then I must disagree. In that case it would be very easy to change
> any license into the GPL.

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 (without other GPL) can be redistributed also under Stanford 
license... This is how I understood it.

> > Or why do you think that Stanford.txt applies to whole source code?
> > From COPYING I understood it differently, due to sections in
> > files, and also because on official webpage is written GPLv2+.
> 
> No, I don't think that Stanford.txt applies to whole source code. It
> applies to *part* of the source code, that's what COPYING file
> says.
> 
> It is very common for projects to be based on several other projects
> and combined from multiple licenses, and it is not a problem if
> licenses are compatible and DFSG-free.

So... question now is, can be whole igmpproxy (as one software package) 
redistributed under GPLv2+? I think yes that yes.

Or... if you think that not, what is reason, and what needs to be done?

And can be included igmpproxy package into Debian?

-- 
Pali Rohár
pali.ro...@gmail.com


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?

[Roberto]

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 about the BSD license.
> 
> But this statement is under mrouted section in COPYING file. Under 
> igmpproxy section is written GPLv2+ license.

I don't understand this phrase, do you mean that igmpproxy authors
relicensed the mrouted source code under the GPLv2+ license? And how if
would be possible

> > The *.c files also point to the Standford.txt license.
> 
> And again in *.c files is GPLv2+ license with information that igmpproxy 
> is based on smcroute (licensed under GPLv2) and mrouted which *original* 
> license was Stanford.

And again I'm not sure that I'm correctly understanding you. If you are
saying that the GPL somewhat invalidates other licenses and now the code
has become GPL because it was mixed with other GPL code then I must
disagree. In that case it would be very easy to change any license into
the GPL.

> Or why do you think that Stanford.txt applies to whole source code? From 
> COPYING I understood it differently, due to sections in files, and also 
> because on official webpage is written GPLv2+.

No, I don't think that Stanford.txt applies to whole source code. It
applies to *part* of the source code, that's what COPYING file
says.

It is very common for projects to be based on several other projects and
combined from multiple licenses, and it is not a problem if licenses are
compatible and DFSG-free.

Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?

[Pali Rohár]

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 distributed under GPL. If it was
> > legal and I correct I do not know... But since 2003 after mrouted
> > got alternative BSD license I think it is correct to redistribute
> > smcroute 0.92 and so also igmpproxy under GPL as states in [1],
> > [2], [3].
> > 
> > And if Debian really had not problem to include smcroute 0.92 into
> > archives in 2006 [4] I guess there should not be problem to include
> > also derivate works from smcroute 0.92 licensed under GPL.
> 
> The authors of smcroute maybe agreed to relicense the code, but that
> does not make any other programs based on mrouted automatically
> relicensed.

I know.

> The COPYING file that you linked says "Original license can be found
> in the Stanford.txt file". It says nothing about the BSD license.

But this statement is under mrouted section in COPYING file. Under 
igmpproxy section is written GPLv2+ license.

> The *.c files also point to the Standford.txt license.

And again in *.c files is GPLv2+ license with information that igmpproxy 
is based on smcroute (licensed under GPLv2) and mrouted which *original* 
license was Stanford.

Personally I do not see any pointer where is written that igmpproxy is 
licensed under Stanford. Everywhere is written that igmpproxy is GPLv2+ 
with some note that some it is based on derived work of mrouted which 
*orignal* license can be found in Stanford.txt.

> There is
> nothing in the igmpproxy that makes me think that they switched to
> the BSD license.

Yes, there is no information about it, also there is no information that 
igmpproxy switched from GPLv2+ to any other license.

Or why do you think that Stanford.txt applies to whole source code? From 
COPYING I understood it differently, due to sections in files, and also 
because on official webpage is written GPLv2+.

> If you had been in contact with the authors and
> they gave you a special permission to make the license change,
> please include in
> debian/copyright the information or the emails in which they gave you
> permission to do so, and please don't do it without their full
> knowledge and approval.
> 
> > ... Or do you have any other opinion which could cause problem in
> > this situation?
> 
> I can't offer legal advice, just saying that according to the
> information given in the source code of igmpproxy, it seems clear to
> me that is still distributed under the GPL *and* the Standford
> license. The code included in igmpproxy has been largely modified
> and its subject to the copyright of mrouted *and* igmpproxy's
> contributors, so all of them must agree in order to change the
> license.
> 
> (Whether the standford license is DFSG-free and/or compatible with
> the GPL is a different issue).

-- 
Pali Rohár
pali.ro...@gmail.com


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?

[Roberto]

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... But since 2003 after mrouted got alternative BSD
> license I think it is correct to redistribute smcroute 0.92 and so also
> igmpproxy under GPL as states in [1], [2], [3].
> 
> And if Debian really had not problem to include smcroute 0.92 into
> archives in 2006 [4] I guess there should not be problem to include also
> derivate works from smcroute 0.92 licensed under GPL.

The authors of smcroute maybe agreed to relicense the code, but that
does not make any other programs based on mrouted automatically
relicensed.

The COPYING file that you linked says "Original license can be found in
the Stanford.txt file". It says nothing about the BSD license. The *.c
files also point to the Standford.txt license. There is nothing in the
igmpproxy that makes me think that they switched to the BSD license. If
you had been in contact with the authors and they gave you a special
permission to make the license change, please include in
debian/copyright the information or the emails in which they gave you
permission to do so, and please don't do it without their full knowledge
and approval.

> ... Or do you have any other opinion which could cause problem in this
> situation?

I can't offer legal advice, just saying that according to the
information given in the source code of igmpproxy, it seems clear to me
that is still distributed under the GPL *and* the Standford license. The
code included in igmpproxy has been largely modified and its subject to
the copyright of mrouted *and* igmpproxy's contributors, so all of them
must agree in order to change the license.

(Whether the standford license is DFSG-free and/or compatible with the
GPL is a different issue).

Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?

[Pali Rohár]

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 of view follows:
> 
> In general, when a program is relicensed, the new license is not applied
> automatically to forks and derivative versions. Imagine that I make a
> GPL program that the igmpproxy developers modify and include into
> igmpproxy. I later relicense my code to a license incompatible with the
> GPL; igmpproxy won't automatically switch to the new license unless
> everyone agree (and probably will never happen because they are fine
> with the GPL version).
> 
> If the new license of mrouted is better, we can expect that all
> developers and contributors will be happy to switch, but it must be done
> by them, nobody else can switch the license in their behalf unless they
> give permission.
> 
> According to the source repository of igmpproxy, it is stil using the
> Standford license.

Based on information provided by (old) igmpproxy webpage [1] its license
is "GNU General Public License version 2.0". README file [2] in version
0.1 contains: "This software is released under the GNU GPL license v2.".
And finally COPYING file in version 0.1 [3] has GPL version 2 with some
information that software is derived work from smcroute 0.92 which was
licensed under the GNU General Public License, version 2. And that
smcroute 0.92 was derivative work of mrouted which was licensed under
Stanford.txt (and later relicensed to BSD).

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... But since 2003 after mrouted got alternative BSD
license I think it is correct to redistribute smcroute 0.92 and so also
igmpproxy under GPL as states in [1], [2], [3].

And if Debian really had not problem to include smcroute 0.92 into
archives in 2006 [4] I guess there should not be problem to include also
derivate works from smcroute 0.92 licensed under GPL.

... Or do you have any other opinion which could cause problem in this
situation?

[1] - https://sourceforge.net/projects/igmpproxy/
[2] - https://sourceforge.net/p/igmpproxy/code/ci/0.1/tree/README
[3] - https://sourceforge.net/p/igmpproxy/code/ci/0.1/tree/COPYING
[4] - https://packages.qa.debian.org/s/smcroute/news/20060624T145546Z.html

-- 
Pali Rohár
pali.ro...@gmail.com

Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?

[Roberto]

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, the new license is not applied
automatically to forks and derivative versions. Imagine that I make a
GPL program that the igmpproxy developers modify and include into
igmpproxy. I later relicense my code to a license incompatible with the
GPL; igmpproxy won't automatically switch to the new license unless
everyone agree (and probably will never happen because they are fine
with the GPL version).

If the new license of mrouted is better, we can expect that all
developers and contributors will be happy to switch, but it must be done
by them, nobody else can switch the license in their behalf unless they
give permission.

According to the source repository of igmpproxy, it is stil using the
Standford license.

Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?

[Ian Jackson]

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.

Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?

[Pali Rohár]

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 Jun 2009 20:54:12 Santiago Garcia Mantinan  
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...

Or 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.