[Fwd: FW: For Approval: Generic Attribution Provision]

Nicholas Goodman ngoodman at bayontechnologies.com
Mon Dec 4 22:15:17 UTC 2006

Great - I'm glad we're all having a real discussion based on merit of an
attribution clause.  Kudos again to Ross for putting something up for
real discussion.

> clause, which have already been articulated here, I would offer a
> hearty "amen" to the arguments made earlier.  Simply, I agree that a
> splash-screen attribution requirement would not be onerous, and it
> would echo certain splash-screen language that has already been
> included in other, OSI-approved licenses.

Yes.  It seems to be in line with previous OSI licenses and in line with
what many "attribution license" companies do for THEIR attribution
currently (ref: Sugar "About" page).

> Here is the original proposal (from Socialtext) with my proposed edits
> "Redistributions of the [original code] in binary form or source code
> form, must ensure that each time the resulting executable program
> [RUNS], a display of the same size as found in the [original code]
> released by the original licensor (e.g., splash screen or banner text)
> of the original licensor's attribution information, which includes:
> (a) Company Name
> (b) Logo (if any) and
> (c) URL

Seems consistent with "giving credit where credit is due."  I'm cool
with the legibility edit.  

I think that sorts out the size/placement which leads me to one
suggestion:  One of the issues I had with the original wording (included
in your edits) was leaving the requirement of placement/size as
determined by original code:
"... a display of the same size as found in the original code released
by the original licensor ..."
I believe the wording (yours/mine/ross/whomever) has to LIMIT the nature
of the attribution and not leave it up to the original licensor.
Otherwise, we're back where we started (badgeware on every UI) screen.
If OSI is going to approve, generally for ubiquitous use, an attribution
rider should limit to appropriate attribution places (IMHO).  Notice
that my definition of "appropriate" was inferred, in part, from what
people using Attribution Licenses do currently for other copyright
holders (docs/about/etc).

> How does this sound?  I also agree with Nicholas Goodman's suggested
> additional language addressing trademark rights, in his post from
> 11/29.

The last thing that I would reiterate from my original "compromise"
attribution rider is the language about "if such a splash screen or
about page is present in redistribution".  I think that OSD #10 requires
that no particular technology be present (ie, can't require a GUI and be
OSD compliant).  This language allows it to meet #10 because attribution
on Splash/About page is not a requirement if there isn't an About or
Splash page present (non GUI circumstances).

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20061204/d6db77d8/attachment.html>

More information about the License-discuss mailing list