Re: [License] Gsas-II
MARIE Alexandre <alexandre.marie@synchrotron-soleil.fr> writes:
> I would like to know if the license of Gsas-II is free to use.
Thank you for taking care to keep software free for all. Especially
thank you for posting the license text here for discussion.
> Here is the license :
> ______________________________________________________________________________________
> General Structure Analysis System - II (GSAS-II)
> OPEN SOURCE LICENSE
>
> Copyright 2010, UChicago Argonne, LLC, Operator of Argonne National Laboratory
> All rights reserved.
>
> GSAS-II may be used by anyone on a royalty-free basis. Use and
> redistribution, with or without modification, are permitted provided
> that the following conditions are met:
Explicitly grants license to resitribute in modified and unmodified
form. Good.
> * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
> notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
This is a restriction that is conventionally considered acceptable.
Good.
> * Software changes, modifications, or derivative works should be noted
> with comments and the author and organization's name.
This might be too restrictive; it effectively forbids anonymous
contribution and redistribution.
> * Distribution of changed, modified or derivative works based on
> GSAS-II grants the GSAS-II copyright holder unrestricted permission
> to include any, or all, new and changed code in future GSAS-II
> releases.
This is, IIUC, met by granting every recipient (including GSAS-II) this
same license. This seems to be a weaker copyleft (one specific party
must receive the same license). I think this is okay, if imbalanced.
> * Redistributions that include binary forms must include all relevant
> source code and reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of
> conditions and the following disclaimers in the documentation and/or
> other materials provided with the distribution.
This combines two requirements:
* A typical requirement to preserve the copyright information and
license (good).
* A requirement that *every* distribution must come with source code.
This may be too burdensome; for example, GPL allows the source to be
omitted, requiring only that a recipient who *requests* source must
receive it.
> * Neither the names of UChicago Argonne, LLC or the Department of
> Energy nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or
> promote products derived from this software without specific prior
> written permission.
A typical requirement not to misrepresent the attribution of a modified
work. Good.
> * The software and the end-user documentation included with the
> redistribution, if any, must include the following acknowledgment:
> "This product includes software produced by UChicago Argonne, LLC
> under Contract No. DE-AC02-06CH11357 with the Department of Energy."
This is a burden on certain forms of work. This might make the work
non-free.
There are several problems with the license restrictions. They may make
the work effectively non-free.
I would recommend the copyright holders express their intent through a
more well-known free-software license like GPLv3 or Expat.
--
\ “When I wake up in the morning, I just can't get started until |
`\ I've had that first, piping hot pot of coffee. Oh, I've tried |
_o__) other enemas...” —Emo Philips |
Ben Finney
Reply to: