bcfg2 license?

[Patrice Dumas]

On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 07:22:22PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> 
> The above advertising clause isnt much different. Is it?

Indeed, it is very similar (though not exactly the same). It could be 
acceptable, but I still find this clause a bit problematic (and adding
journal articles and documentation to advertising materials reinforce
that) since it imposes some additional conditions on the users which 
are not very clear to me. As a side note, the old BSD license doesn't appear 
to be OSI approved.

My worry is that, to comply with that kind of license, users will have
1. to check the license of the software before using it
2. to think whether they are mentionning use of the software or not,
   and depending on the case it may not be that easy, when the use is indirect.

In fact there is something I don't understand clearly, it is whether a 
user using the software has to cite it or not. If it is only in derived 
software, derived software documentation, eg in software distribution it is
fine. If it is in anything related with the software use, it seems wrong 
to me. Honestly, I don't understand the license clearly enough to know
for sure. Maybe this is a language issue.

If the use is covered, I think it goes against something nice in fedora, 
which is that you don't have to worry (nor even think) about anything 
when using a software coming from fedora repos.

--
Pat