On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 10:24:00 +0100 Simon Kainz wrote: [...] > Hello! Hi! > > Sorry for the delay No problem. > and thank you very much for your efforts. You're welcome... :-) > > Am 2014-02-15 00:03, schrieb Francesco Poli: [...] > > I don't know whether this clause can be really called an attempt > > to implement a copyleft. It seems to impose that all modifications > > and additions be licensed under all-permissive terms. In other > > words, it seems to force modifiers to grant far more permissions > > over their modifications than what is granted by the original > > authors over the original work. > > > > I think this fails to meet (the second part of) DFSG#3. > > > Just to understand this right: > > "... and all modifications and > additions to the Software must be freely redistributable by any > party (including Licensor) without restriction. " > > Do you think it violates DFSG#3 because it "overrides" the "... under > the same terms as the license of the original software."(DFSG) by > requiring "redistributability without restriction"? Yes, basically. Trying to be clearer: this clause seems to impose that any modification/addition be redistributable under a restriction-less license. If this is the case, then my own personal opinion is that it violates the second part of DFSG#3, since it makes it impossible to distribute modifications or derived works "under the same terms as the license of the original software" (which indeed has restrictions!). [...] > > > > I agree with your recommendation: the GNU GPL is a far better > > choice, whenever a copyleft license is desired. My personal > > preference goes to the GNU GPL v2: > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.txt > > > > I hope this helps to solve this licensing mess once and for all. > > > > > Well, actually not, because now i still don't know if it is OK to > package Torque 4.2.6.1 for Debian. As I said, my own personal opinion is that the license seems to fail DFSG#3. Moreover, this license seems to be basically equivalent to the one of the Torque versions currently packaged for Debian. I am finally also under the impression that distributing Torque violates the license of OpenPBS v2.3, as I previously explained. Hence, I cannot understand how Torque managed to be accepted in Debian main. Just to be crystal clear: this represents my own personal opinion. I am not a member of the Debian Project, I'm just an external contributor. > I agree, that if Torque would be > under GPL, it would be much easier to package it for Debian(and we > won't have this thread) But there are several different license models > used for software already packaged , so it's more the question of > finding the border between "non GPL but DFSG compliant" and "not DFSG > compliant at all". So maybe someone could give me some tips how to > continue to work on this issue? The suggestion (at least on my side, but I think on Ben Finney's side as well) is to get in touch with the copyright holders of Torque and try to persuade them to re-license it under an uncontroversially DFSG-free license, such as the GNU GPL. I don't know whether this is feasible, but I hope it is. Bye. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
Attachment:
pgpS949rOV3Kn.pgp
Description: PGP signature