Ben's dashboard

Im late too but joux has a point, the all caps is the Internet equivalent to shouting and is considered quite rude. Also it makes it sorta difficult to read I find.

Now that you hate me :) I want to argue this point too stevel.
It is understandable that you have to trademark the Songbird name (cool name btw) and respect the copyrights of the SDK's as governed by law and the contracts involved. That does not, however, require you to attempt to claim copyright over every add-on written as is currently stated under section three (Proprietary) of the Songbird 1.2.0 build 1146 license. It also does not require you to make a point that you are only lending out the rights to use the software and ownership of the individual copies is retained. Write in about the closed-source SDK's/Addons and leave the rest open. Either make it open or not but ease up on the tricky legalese.

3. Proprietary Rights. The Songbird Media Player and Songbird Add-Ons are licensed, not sold. You agree that POTI owns all right, title and interest in and to the Songbird Media Player and Songbird Add-Ons, including without limitation all intellectual property rights therein. The Songbird Media Player and Songbird Add-Ons are protected by United States copyright law and international treaties. You will not delete or in any manner alter the copyright, trademark, and other proprietary rights notices or markings appearing on the Songbird Add-Ons as delivered to you.

So basically its only as free as the aforementioned 'POTI' deems for the moment. You do NOT own this "free libre" software, you are essentially just as bound as a M$ product. The only difference is here they do not have to pay the people writing the software for them. Take careful note that they reserve the right to own the so-called intellectual property (a completely bogus term) to the software you are writing for their product:

"You agree that POTI owns all right, title and interest in and to the Songbird Media Player and Songbird Add-Ons, including without limitation all intellectual property rights therein."
This line is his concern, stop beating around the bush. This doesn't hold up to the GPL form. This isn't a public release, this is a google license, a we will let you use this service for free so we can sell parts of it later and have no effort put in ourselves. All wrapped up in a pseudo-license from both GPL and BSD.

You want to earn the respect of the people who feel this way? Remove this part of the license.

EDIT: but as a developer with an open-source bias, I am somewhat biased......... LOLOLOLOL, I may be upset with the license but at least I got a smile from this line, I probably would have said something like this.

Also @stevel, I appreciate the work involved and understand you want to be employed but that does not give POTI the right to license it this way. You can re-sell the player, while leaving it open source, AND while leaving the so-called intellectual property (which is a bogus term) in the hands of the individual creators where it should lie.

BTW Intellectual Property is a crap term because as Thomas Jefferson (remember him, wrote and signed the Declaration of Independence for the U.S.A.?) stated, you let a thought out and its free to spread. Unless you find a way to make it an object, like a brick which has to be created one by one, it can not be property. For those dissenters out there, try and copy-paste a brick. Won't work.
For more information, contact Richard Stallman at www.fsf.org or www.stallman.org

If you actually read this far, thanks for listening.