If I'm not mistaken, the MIT, ISC, zlib, AND GPL licenses all have the same clause which caused you to reject the BSD license. Has the OEM in question accepted the new license?
EDIT: Sorry, it appears the zlib license differs in that the clause only applies to source distributions and not binary distributions.
The MIT, ISC, and zlib do not seem to, and the OEM is happy with the ISC. I didn't check the GPL, because its overall design conflicts with my intent.
Here's the ISC license, in its entirety:
Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any
purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above
copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES
WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR
ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES
WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN
ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF
OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.
I don't think the "appear in all copies" applies to binary distribution, or at least there's more room for interpretation because it is far less explicit. IANAL, but if it did, there would likely be a LOT of violations - people typically don't embed the license as a string in compiled libraries. (That would probably be a disincentive for using the GPL, which is several times larger than my compiled library!)
Edit: The zlib license explicitly says "source distribution", and does not apply to binary distributions. Good to know.
If you look at the iPhone for example, there is a menu where Apple lists EVERY single last license that applies for any software they ship.
Settings > General > About > Legal > Legal Notices
Where necessary reproducing the licenses isn't that difficult, either in documentation or within some part of the program. If your customers are purchasing something from you as an OEM you should notify them that they need to put certain statements in their documentation.
> I don't think the "appear in all copies" applies to binary distribution.
That's a strange interpretation. Why do you think that?
> IANAL, but if it did, there would likely be a LOT of violations
There are a lot of violations. Many copyright holders don't pursue them, but without an enforceable license, you're relying on upstream copyright holders' ignorance or their goodwill.
Blizzard legal team when writing the credits for Starcraft 2 clearly interpreted the MIT license in such a way that the whole notice needed to be included with each binary copy. The license show up several times, as well as bsd (2,3, and 4 I belive), lgpl and others.
> people typically don't embed the license as a string in compiled libraries
Tradition dictates you include the license as a separate file in the binary's directory, or in the case of a consumer hardware product, on the last page of the product's manual.
EDIT: Sorry, it appears the zlib license differs in that the clause only applies to source distributions and not binary distributions.
EDIT2: I can't find a legally rigorous citation, but here's a Quora discussion which seems to agree with me: http://www.quora.com/Does-the-MIT-license-require-attributio...