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

Re: License for the Torque Resource Manager (RFC)

Roberto Gordo Saez <rgs@linalco.com> 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                                       bts@alum.mit.edu

Reply to: