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

[Craig Muth]

> The trouble is that if you pull a chunk of code (more than a snippet,
> less than the whole thing) out of a badgeware GUI/web program and
> incorporate it into a program that doesn't have a graphical UI,
> what then?  I find a nifty implementation of some algorithm or
> other, I add it to my command-line program, how and where do I
> display the badge?

Good point.  It seems like this should be addressed somehow, if
possible.  Does anyone
have a take on how the Attribution Assurance License works in this case?

> copacetic to Open Source.  My intuition is that giving credit to authors
> is cheap for the value it provides, even if we're talking about screen

I agree very much with this sentiment.  There seem to be some sticky
points, but I am glad an effort is being made to work through them to
find a compromise.  Support companies are making healthy profits from
open source these days (and I applaud them for doing so), but often
the guy who did the initial commit of the bulk of the code (and ideas)
to begin a project gets left in the dust without much recognition.

I think a strength of the OSI has been its recognition that open
source licenses are not one-size-fits-all.  In the interest of
disclosure I concede that I hope to use an attribution provision (or
license) for my own little project if one is settled on.  Otherwise,
I'll likely go the customized attribution clause route.  I'd like to
require forkers to keep 2 hyperlinks to my site in the "Options" box
that is part of my ui.  Other than this, I want to allow them to use,
modify, include, and sell it etc. without having to release the source
of apps they include it into.  My project is a UI component that is
much more likely to be embedded in other projects than forked by them.
 The unmodified GPL IMO serves projects that have large contrubtor
bases (Linux, etc.) extremely well.

--Craig Muth