FOR APPROVAL: WhizbangApplicationCompany Public License 1.0

[Nicholas Goodman]

> unless such a proxy submission contradicts the way in which the OSI
> board operates, it would be very interesting to hear the board's
> official verdict.

If OSI doesn't consider the proxy license i submitted it seems unlikely
the community at large will get the benefit of vetting to a commonly
used "open source" license.  

> 
> At this point, I would like to present two use-cases for consideration.
> 
> Use-Case 1:
> Let's say I develop an application offering 50 different
> functionalities, 5 of them using third-party software under
> WhizbangApplicationCompany Public License (aka APL-like license). Can
> you please imagine my user interface? I would have to have 5 (!) lines
> of text and logos at the end of each of my screens with links back to
> the third-party software authors. I haven't seen any software's
> graphical user interface looking so "funny" and I hope OSI won't
> enforce us going this way by approving such a license.


I've posted an entirely opinionated blog on the matter (disclaimer).
Ajeet (and list) check out the image I created to demonstrate what open
source applications would look like if UI attribution license were the
norm.  It's good for a laugh, if it weren't an important issue.
http://www.nicholasgoodman.com/bt/blog/2006/11/15/open-source-has-a-little-secret-exhibit-b/
(image of open source application with UI attribution licenses:
http://www.nicholasgoodman.com/entry_images/newopensourceapplications.png)

Not an assessment of the license to OSD (that *would* be the OSI
approval process of WPL if allowed) but just to open source norms.

Kind Regards,
Nick
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20061115/4c15f67d/attachment.html>