Re: License for the Torque Resource Manager (RFC)
Roberto Gordo Saez <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> | 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
It requires registration.
> | 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.
It cannot be distributed for money, or for commercial purposes at all.
This is non-free.
> | 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.
And it requires a more free license for derivative works than it
provides for the original work. That is non-free.
So it's definitely non-free, in addition to what you say below. I
think I understand you to have said that conditions 1 and 2 don't
apply any more; in that case, can you have the copyright holder remove
them? That would be much, much more clear and safe.
> - Has the BSD advertising clause -> GPL incompatible.
> - Source must be provided (like the GPL).
> - The expiration clause is dated in the past, so i think that sections 1
> and 2 can't be enforced anymore. If we ignore those clauses, there is little
> information about redistribution remaining in the text, but i think that
> the permissive notice in the header is sufficient.
> - Looks like it is DFSG-free (please, confirm).
> Comments, aditional information are welcome, including concerns about the
> license. I want to be sure that the license is acceptable.
> Roberto Gordo Saez - Free Software Engineer
> Linalco "Especialistas en Linux y Software Libre"
> http://www.linalco.com/ Tel: +34-914561700
Brian Sniffen email@example.com