Francesco Poli <invernom...@paranoici.org> writes: > On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 10:24:00 +0100 Simon Kainz wrote: > > 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)
There are clear benefits for the copyright holder, also: The GNU GPL has benefited from a huge amount of community and legal attention, and it is a robust, widely-understood, effective copyleft license. Rolling one's own license is inadvisable, because either one spends a lot of effort, or the result is not effective for the intended purpose, or (much more likely) both. This is why the Free Software Foundation makes efforts to produce a *General* Public License; one which can be generally applied to software works, instead of inflating the number of incompatible licenses out there. > 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. Right. Simon, to the extent you are motivated, please compassionately engage the copyright holder. Help them to understand that license proliferation is to no-one's benefit, so that they can instead choose an established, well-understood license like the GNU GPL. -- \ “The Things to do are: the things that need doing, that you see | `\ need to be done, and that no one else seems to see need to be | _o__) done.” —Richard Buckminster Fuller, 1970-02-16 | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/85y50xno0p....@benfinney.id.au
