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.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
