Re: Request for comment on license file
(Simon, please remember to respond interleaved as normal for email.)
Simon Kainz <email@example.com> writes:
> 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).
Best not to assume that :-)
The more accurate assumption would be: The FTP master team saw no
problem with including the work in Debian, and no-one has brought to
their attention anything to contradict that.
> Now Torque 188.8.131.52 (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.
Do the copyright holders all grant that license? There was a concern
raised on 2012-01-06.
In Message-Id <CAAvaLCwCjtVWu3SovDFpKkNvG-c6dLpcEMoFQ7_9S6+=GKe-OA@mail.gmail.com>:
> Current upstream is not the copyright holder of the original code. So
> I don't understand how they can replace the license for the whole
What new positive assurance do we have that the copyright holders
actually agree to grant a coherent license on the work?
> If we don't assume some mistake during the upload for 2.4.16 in the
> first place, getting the most recent torque 5.1.x into main should not
> be a problem at all, based on the fact that both packages are covered
> by the same license.
> Please share your thoughts about this.
It would be nice to think such an assumption is safe. Sadly, humans are
not perfect, and it has already been demonstrated there are serious
questions about the provenance and freeness of this work.
So in this case especially, I think it unwise to assume the absence of
mistakes, on anyone's part.
\ “I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or |
`\ anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic.” —Albert |
_o__) Einstein, unsent letter, 1955 |