| Git Clone URL: | https://aur.archlinux.org/sge.git (read-only, click to copy) |
|---|---|
| Package Base: | sge |
| Description: | The Son of Grid Engine is a community project to continue Sun's old gridengine. |
| Upstream URL: | https://arc.liv.ac.uk/trac/SGE |
| Licenses: | custom |
| Submitter: | daimh |
| Maintainer: | petronny |
| Last Packager: | petronny |
| Votes: | 2 |
| Popularity: | 0.000000 |
| First Submitted: | 2019-05-17 16:50 (UTC) |
| Last Updated: | 2022-09-26 05:47 (UTC) |
Again, how I licence my code patch file over Liverpool is between Liverpool and Umich. Under any circumstances, you are not plaintiff.
Your patch is clearly a Modification to the SGE, which should obey SISSL unless SISSL allow you to use other license.
If you are using the "Grid Engine" name based on SGE, then your code must using SISSL and should have pass the compactness test on the gridengine site.
This clearly shows that your "some grid engine" is under SISSL and you are the only one violating the license.
I created the patch file.
https://github.com/daimh/sge/raw/master/patch-for-aur-sge/sge-8.1.9.patch.xz
If you use this patch file, I will withdraw my Orphaning request. The AUR sge package is all yours.
You can either use the SGE link or download the file. It is totally up to you. Further, you can notice that I even didn't list my latest work in the patch file in case you have some other thoughts.
Let me know what you think, please.
Again, how I licence my code patch file over Liverpool is between Liverpool and Umich. Under any circumstances, you are not plaintiff.
Further, no matter what license I use, you have to use my single patch file and mention author and copyright.
If you don't know how to generate such a patch file, I will do it. Just let me know.
I am just the author of my code patch file, umich has the copyright for that patch file only.
That may not be true. Some licenses limit that all modifications to the source code have to use the same license.
Either license, the discussion is between Liverpool and Michiga.
For Liverpool, they don't change the license. Then it's SISSL. For Michigan, I'm not sure if it's involved because your patch may also be licensed as SISSL.
No.
I am just the author of my code patch file, umich has the copyright for that patch file only.
I have nothing to do with you PKGBUILD file. Please remove me from a file that cannot get a command cd right, thanks in advance!
Either license, you have no right to use my code modification without mentioning author and copyright. Or it is steal.
That's already mentioned in the git source tree and the 2nd line in PKGBUILD.
Either license, the discussion is between Liverpool and Michigan
Either license, you have no right to use my code modification without mentioning author and copyright. Or it is steal.
.
So do you want me to change it to the sun licence?
Don't ask me. Please check SISSL and tell me which session provides the right to use other license. That's your patch.
If my patch was SISSL licence, you have 120 days to comply with my copyright request...
The line you quoting from the wiki says there is 120 days to comply with the Standards, not your copyright request. Please tell me in which part of the Standards mentioning your copyright request.
Pinned Comments
petronny commented on 2022-06-16 07:24 (UTC)
The original source link is broken. But luckily I've saved a mirror on github.
I'm using the mirror link for now. Please remind me if the original link is available again.
petronny commented on 2020-10-24 11:54 (UTC)
Prebuilt binary of this package can be found in the arch4edu repository.