Is the license is OSI compliant?

[https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkPb0RtPyicSdU7pLcv1UrX-yCh-YjkOwU]

​http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bcfg2 says the license is BSD, but in fact it is something different - http://trac.mcs.anl.gov/projects/bcfg2/browser/COPYRIGHT

Is the used license approved by OSI?

[solj]

It's a modified 4 clause BSD license ​http://www.spinics.net/lists/fedora-extras/thrd3.html#30975.

[https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkPb0RtPyicSdU7pLcv1UrX-yCh-YjkOwU]

Modified 4 clause BSD licenses can be non-OSI compliant. Why not to take the text of BSD license and explicitly mention the parts that were modified inside the COPYRIGHT.txt?

I can immediately see that the following points are not present in current license text:

2. 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.
3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software
   must display the following acknowledgement:
   This product includes software developed by the <organization>.
4. Neither the name of the <organization> nor the
   names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products
   derived from this software without specific prior written permission.

It seems that the MIT license matches to the current text more appropriately.

[solj]

I don't think we'll worry about this too much since it is not preventing inclusion in any major distributions.