On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 10:17:11AM -0400, Pamela Chestek wrote: The addition of the "for more information" statement doesn't seem to make it materially more restrictive, but the addition of "or software that uses this software" is a key difference for me. It reminds me of the quasi-copyleft requirement in the Sleepycat License ("Redistributions in any form must be accompanied by information on how to obtain complete source code for the DB software and any accompanying software that uses the DB software") (which is seen as not only free but GPL-compatible). I interpret the "this software" in the BSD advertising clause as meaning the advertising clause is triggered only if the advertising materials specifically refer to the software licensed under the license with the advertising clause by name. That interpretation is not possible with the Spread.org advertising clause. While I'm inclined to think that true badgeware provisions that have been treated as free ought to be reconsidered, I am not sure about this condition. However, there is another problem with this license: YOU EXPRESSLY AGREE TO FOREVER INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS OF SPREAD AGAINST ALL CLAIMS, DEMANDS, SUITS OR OTHER ACTIONS ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY FROM YOUR ACCEPTANCE AND USE OF SPREAD. This is much broader than the upstream indemnification clauses I'm aware of in accepted-FLOSS licenses. In the past I believe Fedora has effectively rejected as nonfree licenses with similarly-broad indemnification clauses. When interpreting the atypical advertising and indemnification clauses we should bear in mind that Spread Concepts LLC offers "additional licensing options" aimed at commercial licensees. http://www.spread.org/license/license.html (an external fact which, in other situations in the past, I've argued calls for stricter scrutiny). This license may have first appeared in 2001 (the date given in the license). This was *after* considerable attention had been placed on the problems of the BSD advertising clause (famously leading to its revocation by the UC Berkeley tech transfer office in 1998). Thus this is different from, say, the OpenSSL license, where you have a kind of fossilized BSD-style advertising clause. The Spread developers deliberately put one of the more controversial kinds of free software licensing conditions in a *new* license around the high point of consciousness about the problems of the original advertising clause, and they made it *more* restrictive. And they did so (we may infer) for strategic reasons as a component of a proprietary licensing business model. All of the foregoing makes me think this license should be rejected as nonfree. Terry: I would encourage you to contact Spread Concepts and try to get them to relicense to the three-clause BSD license. - Richard