[Fwd: FW: For Approval: Generic Attribution Provision]
roddixon at cyberspaces.org
Thu Dec 14 02:07:36 UTC 2006
I would add OSD#3 and #4 as well. Mandatory badgeware seems per se
contrary to the spirit and letter of the OSD. Aside from the open
source matter, if a badgeware proponent carefully reads some of the
thoughtful comments posted on this list, it should become apparent
that some forms of badgeware use do not well-serve the holder of the
trademark anyway (that is, if the badgeware is an appropriate
trademark). There must be numerous ways to implement a less imposing
signal of attribution than a mandatory badgeware restriction dressed
up as a trademark license tucked inside a software copyright license.
On Dec 13, 2006, at 4:33 PM, Matthew Flaschen wrote:
> Brian Behlendorf wrote:
>> I consider that unfortunate,
>> personally, but am willing to swallow my idealism - that allowing
>> badgeware to carry the label "Open Source" might be better for the
>> than creating a big schism, and consuming passion and energy on a
>> distinction that doesn't really affect fundamental freedoms we value
>> about Open Source.
> It does affect fundamental freedoms, though. For example, interfaces
> could easily become burdensome if multiple types of badgeware are
> developed. Worse, one statement has implied that multiple forms of
> badgeware could not be combined at all:
> Ross Mayfield wrote:
>> Yet, by their nature, licenses with
>> attribution will only permit the original licensor to include its
>> since the license cannot be amended by sublicensors.
> Finally, there remains the objection on OSD #10 grounds. It is not
> acceptable to limit open source code to GUI programs.
> Matthew Flaschen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the License-discuss