Re: OpenPBS license revisited
On Wed, Feb 11, 2004 at 06:41:57PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> This license covers use of the OpenPBS v2.3 software (the "Software") at
> your site or location, and, for certain users, redistribution of the
> Software to other sites and locations. Use and redistribution of
> OpenPBS v2.3 in source and binary forms, with or without modification,
> are permitted provided that all of the following conditions are met.
OK, we've got permission to modify and/or redistribute. Good.
> After December 31, 2001, only conditions 3-6 must be met:
Since it's after that date, and they're looking at relicencing, this should
just be gone. Especially since "this list of conditions" is mentioned several
times, which leads me to ask "which set? the applicable set or the complete
set?"
[skipping the non-applicable clauses]
> 3. Any Redistribution of source code must retain the above copyright notice
> and the acknowledgment contained in paragraph 6, this list of conditions
> and the disclaimer contained in paragraph 7.
Advertising clause. Ugh. I don't think d-legal has said non-DFSG-free, but
it's certainly not good stuff.
> 4. Any Redistribution in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
> notice and the acknowledgment contained in paragraph 6, this list of
> conditions and the disclaimer contained in paragraph 7 in the
> documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
Is there an echo in here? <grin>
> 5. Redistributions in any form must be accompanied by information on how to
> obtain complete source code for the OpenPBS software and any
> modifications and/or additions to the OpenPBS software. The source code
This triggers my "eh?" radar (not the Canadian detector, the other one). If
I redistribute I need to give a long list of URLs to modifications other people
have made to the software? Sounds like an overly onerous restriction to me.
It's also very vague - are they talking about the OpenPBS software as released
by the redistributor (in which case it's a GPL copyleft) or is it requiring
that all redistribution point to a source of the canonical OpenPBS source (in
which case, if ever all the OpenPBS mirrors go down, you're screwed).
> must either be included in the distribution or be available for no more
> than the cost of distribution plus a nominal fee, and all modifications
> and additions to the Software must be freely redistributable by any party
> (including Licensor) without restriction.
Oops. I think we just hit non-DFSG-free territory. As I read it (and I may be
overly paranoid here) the licence asks that all modifications be licenced to
everyone "without restriction". The terms of the licence are "restrictions" on
redistribution, so the modifications aren't under this licence, they're
effectively public domain. Not a good thing.
Modifying this to say "must be freely redistributable ... under the terms of
this licence" would be a safe modification, I think.
> 6. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of the Software must
> display the following acknowledgment:
>
> "This product includes software developed by NASA Ames Research Center,
> Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and Veridian Information Solutions,
> Inc. Visit www.OpenPBS.org for OpenPBS software support,
> products, and information."
Blech, as we all know.
> 7. DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTY
>
> THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND. ANY EXPRESS
> OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES
> OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, AND NON-INFRINGEMENT
> ARE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMED.
>
> IN NO EVENT SHALL VERIDIAN CORPORATION, ITS AFFILIATED COMPANIES, OR THE
> U.S. GOVERNMENT OR ANY OF ITS AGENCIES BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT OR INDIRECT,
> INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT
> LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA,
> OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF
> LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING
> NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE,
> EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
Blah blah blah, etc.
> This license will be governed by the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia,
> without reference to its choice of law rules.
I'm trying to recall what the consensus on choice of law and choice of venue
clauses were. One was kinda-OK, the other one wasn't. I'm sure someone will
pipe up the answer to that one.
Hope that gives you some ideas.
- Matt
(Junior d-legal Maven-in-training)
Reply to: