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
one:
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
>countries.)
>
>Edmund
>
--
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
Reply to: