Re: License for the Torque Resource Manager (RFC)
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 10:19:00AM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> > | 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
> > | 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.
>
> And it requires a more free license for derivative works than it
> provides for the original work. That is non-free.
This is an interesting point, i haven't noticed it until now. However,
i don't understand why it is a problem. The NPL has a similar clause and
it is considered free (but not recommended) by the FSF:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
> So it's definitely non-free, in addition to what you say below. I
> think I understand you to have said that conditions 1 and 2 don't
> apply any more; in that case, can you have the copyright holder remove
> them? That would be much, much more clear and safe.
>
> -Brian
The expiration note is included with the license text, maybe you have
missed it.
The copyright holder has removed the expiration date in the current
version of the license. Because of that, i think that the license used in
Torque correspond to a previous release of OpenPBS (?). I can try to
contact them anyway...
--
Roberto Gordo Saez - Free Software Engineer
Linalco "Especialistas en Linux y Software Libre"
http://www.linalco.com/ Tel: +34-914561700
Reply to: