Re: PBS License

[John Galt <galt@inconnu.isu.edu>]

On Mon, 16 Jul 2001, Michael Janssen wrote:

>
>I was wading through programs for  cluster systems and I came across
>PBS, a batch system for supercomputers and the like..  The license is I
>think non-free - because of the 1st clause at least..  My questions:
>1. Is it DFSG free now? (probably no)

NO!

>2. Will it be DFSG free after Dec 31? (jury is out)

no.  See my explanations on clause 5.  Also the choice of law in Virginia
makes it just bad karma to call this a DFSG free license: Virginia is a
UCTIA state.

http://www.zdnet.com/sp/stories/news/0,4538,2468854,00.html


>Plz CC me as I'm not subbed to -legal.
>
>----- License Follows -----
>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. After
>December 31, 2001, only conditions 3-6 must be met:
>
>1. Commercial and/or non-commercial use of the Software is permitted
>provided a current software registration is on file at www.OpenPBS.org.
>If use of this software contributes to a publication, product, or
>service, proper attribution must be given; see
>www.OpenPBS.org/credit.html

Non-free: consider the case of OpenPBS.org refusing to accept new
registrations.  I really wonder if a license restriction on use would even
be enforceable without some bought jurists?

>2. Redistribution in any form is only permitted for non-commercial,
>non-profit purposes. There can be no charge for the Software or any
>software incorporating the Software. Further, there can be no
>expectation of revenue generated as a consequence of redistributing the
>Software.

Non-free.

>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.

Standard: clauses like this are in both the GPL and BSDL.

>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.

Again standard.

>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.

GPL-ish stuff, the only problem is that you theoretically cannot use the
OpenPBS license on contributed code, since it implies restrictions (there
goes DFSG 3).  In fact, the only way you could theoretically contribute
code is to make the contributions PD, since ANY license implies
restrictions of SOME type on redistribution.  Not only is this non-free,
but the packager must realize that they are going to have to give away any
authorship rights on their modifications and release them to the public
domain.  In fact, you cannot even require that your name stay attached to
your changes after they leave your hands, as that could be construed to be
a restriction.  Non-free.

>6. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of the Software
>must display the following acknowledgment:

GPL-incompatible, but still DFSG free (paraphrase of clause 3 of the 4
clause BSDL)

>"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."
>
>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.
>
>This license will be governed by the laws of the Commonwealth of
>Virginia, without reference to its choice of law rules.

OOH!  Isn't Virginia one of the bad boys in choice of law clauses?

>YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU HAVE READ THIS AGREEMENT AND UNDERSTAND IT. BY
>PRESSING "ACCEPT" BELOW, YOU CONSENT TO BE BOUND BY ITS TERMS AND
>CONDITIONS.

Grrr!  A click-wrap!  KILL THEM NOW!  This isn't going to affect DFSG
freeness, however it DOES have implications on the efficacy of the
license, since a click-wrap implies an abridgement of fair use: you cannot
use a presumably fairly gotten program without signing away your rights,
so the consent may be considered to be under duress.  Worse: a click-wrap
with a choice of law clause putting it in Virginia.  Hanging's too good
for the bastard that wrote this license.

>

-- 
I can be immature if I want to, because I'm mature enough to make my own
decisions.

Who is John Galt?  galt@inconnu.isu.edu