For a while now I have used the Revised 3-Clause BSD License because it was not GNU. I am looking for opinions on the last clause in it, please comment! If you are not familiar with it, here are the clauses:

• Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
• Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
• Neither the name of the <PROJECT> nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.

Originally I agreed with all of these points. First off I want my code to retain the copyright. Second, I want binaries to have my documented copyright.

And the third point, I originally read the third clause as “You cannot fork this project and say Bob thinks your fork is awesome unless he allows you to.” However, my latest personal project is a framework, and I am unsure if the license is clear on “works derived from” and “works derived with”.

For example, if the project in question is a PHP library (lets say it is called FalconPunch), would that clause prevent you from saying “Powered by FalconPunch” in the page footer? Is that using the name of the project in vain according to clause three? Using the library would mean your script is a “work derived with” or “work derived by using” it and not a “work derived from”. A “work derived from” would mean you modified the library and redistributed it under its own name.

Because of this I think the wording of the third clause is ambiguous and could be twisted to mean both. Is this why there is also a Simplified BSD License that is only the first two clauses? What do you think?