License review for new itext version

[Tom "spot" Callaway]

On Mon, 2007-11-12 at 17:07 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le Lun 12 novembre 2007 15:36, Tom \"spot\" Callaway a écrit :
> >
> > On Sun, 2007-11-11 at 23:38 +0000, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
> 
> >> To continue the monologue, it seems itext upstream is now entirely
> >> licensed as either LGPL 2 or MPL. As such, I can't see a reason it
> >> can't be reinstated in Fedora.
> >
> > If someone points me at a new package for itext, I'd be happy to do a
> > quick audit to confirm that it is OK for Fedora now.
> 
> Here you go
> 
> http://mirrors.dotsrc.org/jpackage/1.7/generic/free/repodata/repoview/itext-0-1.3-2jpp.html

The "disparaging Sun" license is gone, but the "nuclear" clause is still
there in some of the classes.

To reiterate what I said before:

This is a use-case restriction: 
"You acknowledge that Software is not designed,licensed or intended for
use in the design, construction, operation or maintenance of any nuclear
facility."

The word "licensed" is the problem here. Acknowledging that the software
isn't designed or intended for any particular use case is fine, but when
you say that the "software is not licensed for use...", then you're
making a use case restriction.

This is still no-go for Fedora, sorry.

~spot