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. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
