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

[Matthew Flaschen]

Craig Muth wrote:
> My larger point is that I think attribution
> could be a middle-ground between allowing proprietary derivative works
> (a la BSD) and not allowing them (a la GPL), which could be a
> compelling option for certain types of projects looking for a license.

The issue is that we are currently considering a *generic* attribution
license.  It would have to be applicable to any modifiable license,
including the GPL.  Thus, redistribution could be more burdensome than
the ordinary GPL, not less.

> An improved attribution license/provision could give some projects an
option to
> get some benefit, without going as far as restricting commercial
> projects from using them without releasing their source and thus
> greatly reducing their pool of potential adopters.

I think the more important issue is the effect on further redistribution
of the project as open source.  Some licenses the GAP applies to will be
copyleft, and even if they aren't, some redistributors will keep the
modifications open source (OSD 3).  Will these logos become too
burdensome on their projects, e.g. because of technological restrictions
(OSD 10)?

This reminds me.  OSI has begun to come out against license
proliferation, but approving GAP would effectively approve 60-something
licenses, all of which are near-identical to their parents; you have to
wonder whether that alone (regardless of the content of GAP) is a big
mistake.

Matthew Flaschen

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 252 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20061224/ddd715e5/attachment.sig>