Bug#618696: closed by Adam C Powell IV <hazelsct at debian.org> (Re: elmer: multiple licensing issues)
invernomuto at paranoici.org
Wed Apr 13 21:20:14 UTC 2011
On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 22:48:22 -0400 Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-04-10 at 22:56 +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > Since the first licensing issue is still present (non-freeness of a
> > QPL-licensed file), I am reopening the bug report.
> Is QPL really considered non-DFSG-free?
I am convinced that it fails to meet the DFSG, and it seems that I am
not the only one.
Please take a look at the already cited (long) threads on debian-legal:
As I have already said: at least one package (libcwd) got moved from
main to non-free due to the QPL (see bug #251983), and one package
(ocaml) is in main because it's licensed under the terms of a modified
QPL, without the choice of venue clause and with an additional
permission to ignore clause 6c (see ocaml changelog entry for version
> The Wiki  includes it among
> "Licenses whose status is unsettled",
That's it: I don't think there should be works under highly
controversial licenses in Debian main...
> and although the example mentioned
> of Qt can be in main because it is QPL/GPL (or was when this was
> written), the acceptance of deal.II  into main indicates that the FTP
> masters believe that QPL is DFSG-free.
I am convinced that accepting QPL-licensed works in main is a mistake
(maybe an oversight, or maybe not, but a mistake anyway).
New GnuPG key, see the transition document!
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the debian-science-maintainers