Re: Geant321 and geant4 in science package

[Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>]

Christophe Hugon writes ("Re: Geant321 and geant4 in science package"):
> On 04/17/2013 02:14 AM, Lifeng Sun wrote:
> > I am the maintainer of geant321. Geant4 is not DFSG-conformed due to
> > an anti-patent clause in the license so we cannot maintain it as a
> > Debian official package [1].

Can someone point me to the previous discussion of the supposed
problems with this licence ?

I found this:
  https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/07/msg00016.html

I have read that thread and I don't agree with the conclusions.  I
agree that the litigation mutually-assured-destruction clause is
unfortunate and I wouldn't accept (say) a libc or init system with it.
But (even as someone who is a fan of GPL enforcement) I wouldn't be
too worried about it in the context of Geant4.

Note that the opinions you receive on debian-legal are, unfortunately,
often not representative of either (a) the consensus of the Debian
project as a whole, or (b) the views of the teams in Debian whose
responsibility it is to make licence acceptability decisions.

If you actually want a definitive view you need to ask ftpmaster.

Ian.