Re: OpenPBS license revisited
Scripsit Matthew Palmer <mpalmer@debian.org>
> [skipping the non-applicable clauses]
Beware. http://www.openpbs.org/license.html does not exempt the two
first clauses anymore. Of course that does not affect old sources that
someone may genuinely have received under the older license text, but
taking care in what one does would be recommended.
> > 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.
This is not an advertising clause. It just says that you must not
remove copyright notices. That is unproblematic, as is clause 4 (snipped).
> > 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
Yes, it is strangely drafted. The intent may be benign, but it is hard
to argue that it is necessarily so.
> > 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)
I don't think you're paranoid either; my reaction is similar to yours.
> 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.
Not a good thing at all. Directly fails second half of DFSG #3.
> > 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.
Indeed. THIS is an advertising clause. :-| And it's not only an
acknowledgement it wants, it wants its website advertised.
> > 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 think we have solid consensus on neither. Personally I think that
choice of law is generally OK (unless the law chosen makes the license
text mean something different and worse than its apparent meaning).
--
Henning Makholm "What has it got in its pocketses?"
Reply to: