Needs to be analysed one-by-one. > Section 3 “RESTRICTIONS” does say no removing of proprietary notices, labels or copyrights - is that the problem? The licen

Needs to be analysed one-by-one. > Section 3 “RESTRICTIONS” does say no removing of proprietary notices, labels or copyrights - is that the problem? The license in itself doesn't say that, but the header to link to the DLL is dual-licensed under GPL and 3-BSD (note that the rest of WinTun is solely GPL), and all BSD variants requires notices (even if it is in an About section). > It says no redistributing the “rights of the Software” which is different than using the Software directly. So no sub-licensing, for example. They can distribute the software as-is (if using this license), but they cannot adjust the restrictions to a more permissive software (say, BSD or MIT license). This is to enforce GPL2 in other scenarios. This is equivalent in proprietary licenses, where it says that the software is licensed to you but its IP is not transferred. > And maybe(?) most relevant it says you cannot use the name Wintun to promote your own software, which seems potentially almost opposite of this claim of violation. "Promotion" here has a specific meaning, at least in the US. Mentioning that your software uses WinTun for legal compliance is not promotion. Mentioning WinTun in your advertisement for the software (unless to mention that it uses WinTun for its VPN), and especially mentioning that WinTun reccomends your software is banned. This might be very obvious, but even 3-BSD (example follows) has maintained this language because trademark laws are weird. Extract of 3-BSD: 3. Neither the name of the copyright holder nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.