[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: PBS License

On Tue, 17 Jul 2001, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:

>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?

With the XFree86 license, it's tough to find a restriction, but they have

 The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be
   included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

this necessarily restricts the redistribution to copies carrying a copy of
the license.

>>  Not only is this non-free,
>Even if contributions did have to be PD, why would this make it non-free?

DFSG 3: "under the same terms as the license".  Even if we put aside my
strict definition of restriction, this license is not going to qualify
under it's own clause 5.

>> 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.

How would it propagate without the implicit restriction of coupling the
license with the product?

>>  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.

If it's PD, what license?

>(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

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

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

Reply to: