The main part of the-Click-license is a verbatim copy of MIT. The non-advertising clause has a slightly different wording, though: X11: [Except as contained in this notice, the name of <copyright holders> shall not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote the sale, use or other dealings in this Software without prior written authorization from <copyright holders>.] the-Click-license: The name and trademarks of copyright holders may NOT be used in advertising or publicity pertaining to the Software without specific, written prior permission. Title to copyright in this Software and any associated documentation will at all times remain with copyright holders. Since we don't distinguish between the X11 license (with the non-advertising clause) and the MIT license (without that clause), I think we can subsume the above under "MIT" as well.
Also, someone should contact upstream and ask them if they cannot use e.g. the X11 license instead (obviously, with s/the X Consortium/copyright holders/g) which is almost identical to theirs: http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:X11 That would have the advantage that it is already approved by the FSF. License proliferation is bad because it means additional work for all downstreams.
I don't see the non-advertising clauses as equivalent. the-Click-license explicitly specifies: 1. trademarks cannot be used in advertising 2. and that title is retained by the authors. To cover them better: #1 The trademark may cover more than simply the name. Consider the using the Gentoo logo without the name as an example: they are separate trademarks #2 I has interesting implications for any third-party documentation (think README.gentoo): the software copyright owners are attempting to take it directly.
(In reply to Robin Johnson from comment #2) > #1 The trademark may cover more than simply the name. Consider the using the > Gentoo logo without the name as an example: they are separate trademarks Indeed. Also it seems to include not only the trademarks associated with the software, but any trademarks of the copyright holders. > #2 I has interesting implications for any third-party documentation (think > README.gentoo): the software copyright owners are attempting to take it > directly. Does this even qualify as open source then? It seems to violate clause 9 of the Open Source Definition: https://opensource.org/osd.html
The clause in question is taken from the W3C license (which is approved by both FSF and OSI: The name and trademarks of copyright holders may NOT be used in advertising or publicity pertaining to the software without specific, written prior permission. Title to copyright in this software and any associated documentation will at all times remain with copyright holders. So I guess we could add the the-Click-license to the MISC-FREE group.
(In reply to Ulrich Müller from comment #4) > So I guess we could add the the-Click-license to the MISC-FREE group. I see no objections, therefore committed now.
