Re: OpenPBS license revisited
Scripsit Michael Banck <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2004 at 10:49:41PM +0000, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > > The terms of the licence are "restrictions" on redistribution, so
> > > the modifications aren't under this licence, they're effectively
> > > public domain. Not a good thing.
> > Not a good thing at all. Directly fails second half of DFSG #3.
> That was also the main point of the discussion back then. Only "John
> Galt" seemed to consider it violating DFSG #3 though, Thomas Bushnell
> et.al. seemed to argue that the second half of DFSG #3 does not apply.
I just read through the old thread, and it's indeed not terribly
enlightening. "John Galt" was rather good at trolling; he seems to
have managed to derail the entire thread by picking a valid conclusion
and defending with the weakest and most confused arguments he could
Also, we have generally become better at identifying "hidden
imbalances" in licenses in recent years. In this case the underlying
problem is "you can't use our code in proprietary products, but you
must allow us to use your code in proprietary products".
> > > > 6. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of the
> > > > Software must display the following acknowledgment:
> > > Blech, as we all know.
> Blech, as in: "Yuck, but still DFSG conforming?"
More or less, yes. But I wouldn't be surprised if a couple of years
from now we develop a new consensus that such advertising clauses are
Henning Makholm "It was intended to compile from some approximation to
the M-notation, but the M-notation was never fully defined,
because representing LISP functions by LISP lists became the
dominant programming language when the interpreter later became available."