On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 05:14:36PM +0100, Roberto Gordo Saez 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 I'm replying to myself. I've read the thread pointed by MJ Ray, with more information on this subject. I was not aware of such discussion. I should search for openpbs instead of torque in debian-legal ;-)
-- Roberto Gordo Saez - Free Software Engineer Linalco "Especialistas en Linux y Software Libre" http://www.linalco.com/ Tel: +34-914561700
