bcfg2 license?

[Axel Thimm]

On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 01:35:16PM -0600, Callum Lerwick wrote:
> 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.

But open source licenses need to allow for modification. So in this
scope we don't care about intact copies :)

> 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.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/attachments/20061220/84201cf3/attachment.sig>