The CAOSL license looks like a derivative/variation of BSD-with-attribution. However, point 5. seems to be an extra trademark protection.
Added to MISC-FREE group.
Such badge-ware licenses may be a risk due to an internal clash due to sloppy drafting (which gives typos in the license, may well be the case).
> 3. The end-user documentation included with the redistribution, if any, must
> include the following acknowledgment:
> "This product includes software developed by Computer Associates
> Alternately, this acknowledgment may appear in the software itself, if and
> wherever such third-party acknowledgments normally appear.
The §3 quoted above, dictates that the trade mark has to be used in the product, while the §5 quoted below specifically prevents this to happen.
> 5. Products may not include "Computer Associates" their name, without prior
> written permission of the Computer Associates.
In this specific case, I would argue that the §5 *probably* means that the product may not use the trade mark in its own name and (while obsolete) that this should be OK to include in FREE-MISC. This is supported by the fact that the current license.txt on project’s GitHub repo says “in their name”.
BTW, I think we need to update the license in Gentoo to match the one in Git, as it gets rid of (some of) the typos of the license as it is on the project’s website:
@java, could you do the needful?