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

[David Dillard]

Suppose you want to combine two sets of code where the attribution
clauses in the licenses state (as in the Terracotta license) that you
must put the text at the very bottom and in the center.  You can't meet
the terms of both licenses.  Thus, you cannot combine the two sets of
code.  Seems silly to let attribution requirements prevent such a
combination.


--- David


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rick Moen [mailto:rick at linuxmafia.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 7:22 PM
> To: license-discuss at opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: FW: For Approval: Generic Attribution Provision]
> 
> Quoting John Cowan (cowan at ccil.org):
> 
> > The OSI Definitions don't merely contemplate certain types 
> of software 
> > reuse, but *every* type of software reuse.
> 
> Which brings me to a point I'm pretty sure nobody has yet mentioned:
> Given an aspiring open source licence with a "Generic Attribution"
> (i.e., mandated graphical advertising) provision, what 
> happens when Joe/Jane Coder uses some substantive covered 
> code from Codebase A, plus some from Codebase B?  Does 
> his/her derivative work need to sport _two_ advertising logos 
> in the bottom-left corner?  With addition of borrowings from 
> Codebases C, D, and E, Joe/Jane would seem to have 
> accumulated a big enough crowd of logos for them to form a 
> basketball team, nicht wahr?
> 
> That doesn't seem a lot like open source to me, substantively.
> 
> -- 
> Cheers,           A mosquito cried out in pain:       The 
> cause of his sorrow
> Rick Moen         "A chemist has poisoned my brain!"  Was 
> para-dichloro
> rick at linuxmafia.com                                   
> Diphenyltrichloroethane.
>