[bind10-dev] Recommendations for message passing libraries?

[Jeremy C. Reed]

On Thu, 2 Jun 2011, Michal 'vorner' Vaner wrote:

> http://www.spread.org/
> 
> He worked with it and said he liked it. The licence is something based 
> on BSD, but not completely identical. It says it can do some 
> guaranteed deliveries across local or wide networks, etc, and that 
> many distributed applications use it. But I didn't read trough it 
> much.

The license is simply impossible -- which is a reason why The Regents of 
the University of California and many others decided to get rid of that 
adversiting clause. Many consider this style of license to be 
incompatible with many other open source projects.

(I don't have a personal problem with the original advertising clause -- 
I have sold products that specifically display the adverising 
acknowledgment in some, but not all, of my advertising materials. It is 
not mentioned in "All advertising materials" because others sales 
descriptions of my products did/do not include it also.)

But their license is even more strict about it.

The http://www.spread.org/license/license.html web page has conflicting 
statements (require URL on web pages and then later saying it is not 
required). It is misleading for it to say it is similar to BSD license 
since it has other additional clauses and the disclaimer is different 
too.

It may not hurt to ask them to work with http://opensource.org/approval 
to change their license to conform.