[Fwd: FW: For Approval: Generic Attribution Provision]
rick at linuxmafia.com
Mon Dec 18 21:12:47 UTC 2006
Quoting Matthew Flaschen (matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu):
> 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.
I saw one cited where the logo was supposed to be in the exact centre, a
specified distance from the bottom.
> > 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."
Yes. Please note that in neither case does this does not substantially
interfere with the OSD-detailed ability to use the software for any
purpose. My earlier point was that, through accumulation of mandated
logos in consequence of code reuse, a badgeware provision may tend over
time to substantively interfere in exactly the way that old-BSD and APL
1.1 doesn't. ;->
Cheers, Now, it's time to hack the real world, and let other
Rick Moen people write Web sites about it.
rick at linuxmafia.com -- Donald B. Marti
More information about the License-discuss