Bud P. Bruegger wrote:

> I believe that even when one has only open source projects in mind, it
> wouldn't be considered a free license.  The FSF would surely object to
> the "advertisement clause" that was also there in earlier versions of
> the BSD license ("Redistributions of source code must retain the above
> copyright notice..." and "Redistributions in binary form must
> reproduce the above copyright notice,").  In my understanding, this
> makes the license GPL incompatible.


The Sleepycat license (aka Berkeley Database License) is indeed GPL
compatible and 'free software', according to FSF:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses

> Ugh, licensing...  Necessary but not easy..

Agreed!

-- Graham