[Fedora-legal-list] Question about BSD style license

[Stephen John Smoogen]

On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 12:32, Sergio Belkin <sebelk at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> My name is Sergio Belkin I maintain UpTools package. That package has
> a License that has 4 clauses and because of that I get confused and
> labeld as "BSD with advertising". But a closer read of "BSD with
> advertising" at
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/FAQ#What.27s_the_deal_with_the_BSD_with_advertising_license.3F
> makes to understand that is the License that we are using is not "BSD
> with advertising". Anyway I wonder if even that has 4 clauses it's a
> "BSD" license. I've found that cyrus-sasl has the same license and its
> license it was as "BSD" but maintainer changed the tag License, surely
> because of a bug I reported.
>
>  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=679416
>
> But again, seeing more deeply it doesn't seem "BSD with advertising".
>
> In short: Please could you tell me if the  following License can be
> tagged as "BSD" i.e. BSD License (no advertising)
>

The clause that causes GPL problems in the original BSD was the
following license terms:


3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must
display the following acknowledgement: This product includes software developed
by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors.


That would seem equivalent to

>  * 4. Redistributions of any form whatsoever must retain the following
>  *    acknowledgment: 'This product includes software developed by the
>  *    "Universidad de Palermo, Argentina" (http://www.palermo.edu/).'


so it would seem that your software is BSD with advertising clause.


-- 
Stephen J Smoogen.
"The core skill of innovators is error recovery, not failure avoidance."
Randy Nelson, President of Pixar University.
"Let us be kind, one to another, for most of us are fighting a hard
battle." -- Ian MacLaren