On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 02:35:44AM +0200, Steffen Moeller wrote: > Well, upstream likes the Debian package to appear and indicated that > they would refer to it on their web site once it has hit the archive. > Concerning the license, yes, I made a mistake, it should have gone to > non-free since it only allows for non-commercial redistribution.
Well, that's unfortunate. I don't think Debian wants advertisement by non-free projects, though. At least they should make clear that torque is not part of Debian and shipped as convenience in the non-free component (or something). I understand that torque is not in a position to change the license (because the original code is owned by whoever ows Veridian Inc. or whatever it was which wrote the PBS license), but maybe querying them about making another effort would be nice (though probably impossible due to the various copyright holders, I assume no copyright assignment process is in place). Maybe you can at least get some statement out of upstream with regard to clauses 1 and 2. While the text in debian/copyright says clasuses 1 and 2 expired at the end of 2001; I think the current owner of PBS considers them (retro-actively) still active. So knowing what the Torque people consider would be a good first step here. The rest of the license is "almost-free" as in, various people have various ideas about some text, and it would probably be easy to fix it up if one could change the license. But maybe ftp-master would even consider it free, who knows. So if you did not upload a package to non-free, maybe waiting for the REJECT would be a better way. Really rather unfortunate. Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-science-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
