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

[Matthew Flaschen]

Rick Moen wrote:
> I'm afraid I fail to grasp any essential impossibility to requiring
> multiple mandatory logos (other than cases like multiple logos required
> to be, e.g., in the exact centre bottom, as one provision recently
> discused requires); maybe you can explain that to me.

I think someone *may* have said two licenses that both require logos at
the *very top left* (for example) are incompatible because of course
only one can actually be in the exact top left.  However, I don't think
this is a real issue; it would be acceptable in practice to put them
both as close as possible to the top left.

> That BSD clause's encumbrance was not on what the code may and may not
> (or must and must not) contain or become -- but rather on advertising
> about the codebase: its features, and its usage.

Apache License 1.1 (which is approved) has a quite similar clause:

 "3. The end-user documentation included with the redistribution, if
any, must include the following acknowledgment:

    "This product includes software developed by the Apache Software
Foundation (http://www.apache.org/)."

Alternately, this acknowledgment may appear in the software itself, if
and wherever such third-party acknowledgments normally appear."

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/20061216/6d8922cc/attachment.sig>