Odd licenses

[Tom 'spot' Callaway]

On Fri, 2007-02-09 at 14:43 -0500, Andrew Overholt wrote:
> Sorry, I forgot to include the links.  Full text below.
> 
> Merge review for adaptx
> [1]
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225238
> 
> adaptx license.txt
> [2]
> http://svn.codehaus.org/castor/adaptx/trunk/src/doc/license.txt
> 
> * Andrew Overholt <overholt at redhat.com> [2007-02-09 14:42]:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I'm currently trying to do to the merge review for adaptx [1] but the
> > license field is troubling:
> > 
> > Exolab Software License
> > 
> > A google query gives this page (in the cache):
> > 
> > http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:kh3l7BHsrJsJ:freshmeat.net/releases/3417/+exolab+osi&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=us&lr=lang_en|lang_fr&client=firefox-a
> > 
> > Which seems to imply that the license [2] is BSD.  It does indeed look
> > quite BSD-ish to me but what should the license field have?  Is this
> > okay from a legal standpoint?  Spot?

Mark it as BSD.

99% of the time, when a License has the name of the vendor in it (in the
format $VENDOR Software License), its BSD.

There are LOTS of things in Core that are just BSD, with mislabeled
fields in their spec files (like say, Distributable).

~spot