[Fwd: FW: For Approval: Generic Attribution Provision]
brian at collab.net
Wed Dec 13 02:39:44 UTC 2006
On Sun, 10 Dec 2006, Ben Tilly wrote:
> On 12/9/06, John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org> wrote:
>> Brian Behlendorf scripsit:
>> 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?
> Slightly more generously, suppose that I add a small chunk of code
> from a badgeware program into an existing GUI/web program. To do that
> do I have to go through *every* screen to add the badge even though it
> is only used in one place? If so, that's a pretty big disincentive
> for using that code. A big enough one that in practice I'm going to
> choose not to do it.
Ben's example is easier to answer. Yes, it's a big disincentive - as
would having to relicense your application to be GPL rather than another
license just because that code you desire is GPL-licensed. Inconvenience
doesn't seem to be a primary constraint.
The answer to John's would presumably be - "well, implement a GUI". A
more serious answer is that I'm not suggesting that all possible badgeware
provisions be accepted, but that it would be possible to come up with one.
A provision that says that the badge must be "somewhere prominent and
user-visible within a single click or keyboard input" might be an
acceptably generic way of stating it. If you're building a DNS server
that has no user interface other than the DNS information returned on a
lookup, that's a trickier situation, but how much harm is done by saying
such a no-UI project can't use code from the badgeware project?
More information about the License-discuss