On Tue, 17 Jul 2001, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote: >John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> >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? [EMAIL PROTECTED]
