On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 08:49:07 +0100 Simon Kainz wrote: [...] > Hello again.
Hi! > > 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 https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2014/02/msg00028.html https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2014/02/msg00029.html for further details. > > > Now Torque 4.2.6.1 (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: https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2012/01/msg00030.html https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2012/01/msg00046.html 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. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ fsck is a four letter word... ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
pgpX3gsYts6_V.pgp
Description: PGP signature
