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

[Matthew Flaschen]

Craig Muth wrote:
> What I proposed was bad for open source was specifically when
> companies rebrand and charge money without contributing back.

Obviously, OSD #1 explicitly allows this, which in my eyes is enough
reason to stop  complaining about it.  I would argue further that any
use of open source freedoms is good for open source.  The market can
decide which distributions of open source software to acquire or buy.

If distributions/programs don't innovate, people will likely abandon
them, as noted by Michael Tiemann.

> Not all projects are like this though.  Not all projects have a huge
> group of contributors to leverage.  Many projects deal with a very
> specific application or component, and can't reasonably expect help
> from contributors.  This is why the OSI has approved more than just
> the GPL - because not all projects are alike.

I wasn't around for most, but it seems they approved them because they
comply with the OSD.  For all the back-and-forth, and "Well if they
just..." the GAP as submitted doesn't comply with OSD #10.  It may not
even really comply with OSD #3.  More importantly, the submitter hasn't
expressed willingness to make the necessary adjustments so it would comply.

Matthew Flaschen

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20061216/76cabd6e/attachment.sig>