That is irrelevant, look at the way the clauses are structured: > (b) any software that is a modification or derivative of any software licensed under the GNU

That is irrelevant, look at the way the clauses are structured: > (b) any software that is a modification or derivative of any software licensed under the GNU General Public License or Library or Lesser Public License, > or any other license with terms similar thereto so that Customer content become subject to the terms of such license. it's not a question of terms similarity in that clause, it literally forbids any usage of GPL or LGPL by name. These licenses are "name banned", not just by "features". You can't have GPL or LGPL, nor can you require clients to sublicense you to GPL/LGPL for your program to operate, or any other license that has similar propagating terms to sub-licensed entities. Obviously you can turn the world on "terms similar", h265 user/device licensing or whatever isn't terms similar here. But just by the plain text it's very obviously a direct swipe at GPL and viral licensing, they're banned by name, at minimum they probably want to see BSD/MIT I guess. Article isn't wrong that's a crazy-ass term.