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

[Rod Dixon]

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.

Rod Dixon

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  
>> world
>> 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.
>>
>>     Brian
>
> 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  
>> logo
>> 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...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20061213/7270f8d6/attachment.html>