On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 10:19:00AM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > > | 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. This is an interesting point, i haven't noticed it until now. However, i don't understand why it is a problem. The NPL has a similar clause and it is considered free (but not recommended) by the FSF:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html > 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. > > -Brian The expiration note is included with the license text, maybe you have missed it. The copyright holder has removed the expiration date in the current version of the license. Because of that, i think that the license used in Torque correspond to a previous release of OpenPBS (?). I can try to contact them anyway... -- Roberto Gordo Saez - Free Software Engineer Linalco "Especialistas en Linux y Software Libre" http://www.linalco.com/ Tel: +34-914561700
