License review for new itext version

[Jonathan Underwood]

On 12/11/2007, Tom spot Callaway <tcallawa at redhat.com> wrote:
> 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.

I contacted upstream, but the relicensing the relevant files is not a
possibility for them, alas (they're not the original copyright holders
- Sun is).

As an aside, I wonder if distributing itext under the LGPL while
including those files licensed with the nuclear clause is not a
contradiction and invalid.

Jonathan.