[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Request for comment on license file

On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 08:49:07 +0100 Simon Kainz wrote:

> Hello again.


> I'm still pondering about this issue and now have a different approach:
> Currently torque 2.4.16 is in main, so i take it for granted that it's
> license is DFSG compatible, otherwise it wouldn't be there(at least it
> would't for such a long time).

The fact is: I am convinced that the inclusion of torque in Debian main
was an oversight. In my opinion, it should not have happened in the
first place!
Please re-read
for further details.

> Now Torque (and even the most recent Version 5.1.0) both have
> excatly the same license included, so they are under the same license
> as 2.4.16.

Looking back at the previous discussions, it seems to me that there was
a license change between version 2.4.x and version 2.5.x:

Anyway, both licenses include the restriction that I personally
consider non-free.
Worse: I am under the impression that Torque (which is based on
OpenPBS) is violating the license of OpenPBS, and hence is not
distributable, not even in the non-free archive.

> So to my understanding:
> If we don't assume some mistake during the upload for 2.4.16 in the
> first place

My conclusion was that there has indeed been a mistake.
If other debian-legal regulars agree, I think that a serious bug should
be filed against package torque.

 fsck is a four letter word...
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82  3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE

Attachment: pgpHZVR2TRShw.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: