bcfg2 license?

[Callum Lerwick]

On Tue, 2006-12-19 at 09:35 +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 10:12:51PM -0600, Jeffrey C. Ollie wrote:
> > http://trac.mcs.anl.gov/projects/bcfg2/browser/trunk/bcfg2/LICENSE
> > 
> > Free enough for extras?
> 
> No, because of the advertisement clause:
>  
> "4. All advertising materials, journal articles and documentation
>  mentioning features derived from or use of the Software must display
>  the following acknowledgment:"
> 
> This is a restriction on use which renders it non free. Also it may be 
> hard to follow this rule since it is not very precise, since 'mentionning
> features derived from or use' maybe understood more or less broadly.

Aren't we overlooking the following bit:

"In the event that the product being advertised includes an intact
distribution of the Software (with copyright and license included) then
this clause is waived."

Which, considering the rest of the license, I think may be intended to
mean "intact" copies are exempt from the advertising clause, but any
patched or forked or derived version is stuck with the advertising
clause.

Or not. At any rate, it confuses the hell out of me (it doesn't define
what an "intact" copy is, but then IANAL), changing it to something less
confusing and more free couldn't hurt.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/attachments/20061219/7e573f0b/attachment.sig>