Re: PBS License

[Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <edmundo@rano.org>]

John Galt <galt@inconnu.isu.edu>:

> >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.

I don't follow this argument. In what way does the X11 licence
restrict redistribution?

>  Not only is this non-free,

Even if contributions did have to be PD, why would this make it 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.

I don't see what is to stop an evil packager from releasing a patch
with a licence saying that the patch may be freely redistributed but
not modified, for example.

>  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.

Your name would presumably appear in the licence. If anyone were to
remove the licence, the code would become unredistributable, because
no one would have permission any more. This would arguably violate
clause 5, so I would guess that your name would have to stay attached
even if you made your modification PD.

(Stupid theoretical question that we shouldn't waste time discussing:
Would Debian be happy to redistribute a package with a copyright
notice that says: "I am not the author of this software. I have
deleted all references to the name of the author. However, I haven't
modified the licence other than by deleting the author's name, so you
can see that it was allowed for me to delete the author's name and
that the software is DFSG-free." Personally, before redistributing
something like that I would want to see both the original licence and
an explanation for why the name has been deleted, and I would also be
worried about the inalienable moral rights that exist in certain
countries.)

Edmund