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

[Brian Behlendorf]

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting an offlist side-discussion I was recently in:   Code reuse,
> albeit somewhat rarer than often believed, is an important enough core
> notion of open source to be referred to (though without specific mention
> of _multiple_ codebases) in OSD#3.  Like forking, it's (IMVAO) an
> important reserve power, regardless of how often used in practice.

I agree.

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Craig Muth wrote:
> Although I think many here on the list have made valid refutations for
> many points raised by SugarCRM, I think this one still stands:
>
>> I guess they didn't notice that it's not open source.  They downloaded it,
>> accessed the source, modified it, forked it, and redistributed it.  If it
>> smells like open source and tastes like open source...maybe it's open
>> source?

That was an argument for consensus by bullying and establishing 
"Wikiality" (Colbert[1]).  I guess it's this list's and OSI's job not just 
to determine whether there's some sort of provision that could work, but 
once defined, to inform the public when someone's selling them a bill of 
goods labelled "Open Source" when it really isn't.  Otherwise, the 
revelancy of the mark and this organization is nil.

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Michael Tiemann wrote:
> I've already addressed this, but can you imagine "Powered by
> Shakespeare" at the bottom of every movie that has a plot that can be
> related to one of his works?

I think that's an overstretched analogy.  We're not talking about separate 
software that might be "related" to some other original piece - we're 
talking about derivative works.  If the Bard still had copyright, you can 
rest assured his estate would be asking for credit in some form anytime 
someone created a plot that paid more than passing coincidence or subtle 
homage to the Tempest.  (Many filmmakers don't even need to be compelled 
to do so - some proudly state their influences.)  The widespread use 
of the Creative Commons' attribution clause suggests that it can be an 
important motivation for creating public works.

Michael, are you against any form of attribution clause?  Or simply put 
off (as am I) by the specific one suggested by Ross?

 	Brian



[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_in_popular_culture