ZDNet article - why attribution matters

Rick Moen rick at linuxmafia.com
Tue Nov 28 05:04:54 UTC 2006

Quoting John-Sugar (john at sugarcrm.com):

> Just another example of a way to be technically OSI approved, but still
> protect your attribution marks. What happens if you remove all the redhat
> marks and compile the source? RHEL makes that super simple right? No compile
> issues? Any average developer should be able to do this right? Can you point
> me to an URL and instructions on how to do this? 


> Another way is to add external service agreements that surround GPL
> code that place extended limitations on the use of GPL code within
> enterprises that buy commercial linux subscription contracts? If this
> is true, it doesn't seem very open source to me. Even though it's 'OSI
> approved'. 

That would very clearly _not_ be open source, per OSD items #1, 6, and
8.  Strike one.

> OSI is an organization that I believe tries very hard to represent the
> interests of both developers and users. I really do not like the idea
> of a small group of folks (I'm curious to understand how board members
> are chosen, elected, etc.) trying to create laws for the rest of the
> world.

Trying to gratuitously change the subject to the personal merits of OSI
Board members.  Strike two.

> Open Source to me is about freedom. It's about letting the collective
> wisdom of crowds choose the licenses as they, the users see fit.

Fallacy of argumentum ad populam.  Strike three.  

> I am not trying to stir things up too much here.

The noise will be ignored.  Don't worry.

> I've purposely stayed away from this discussion because it felt more
> like punditry then action. And most importantly, the acknowledgement
> that open source is growing, but it is also changing. I hope OSI does
> not get stuck in the past or it could, and I think will be superseded
> by a new open source organization that more people both developers and
> users feel represent their real interests and values. 

Oh yeah.  Threaten us with formation of yet another shareware collective.

> Attribution is here to stay. 

Attribution per se is of course not an issue.  Your remedial reading on
that point should include the original BSD licence.

And don't try to hustle the OSI, John.  You'll just waste everyone's
time and look silly in public.

Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature  to help me spread.
Hi!p I'm a .signature spread virus! Copy into your ~/.signature to help me
Hilp I'm .sign turepread virus! into your ~/.signature! help me! Copy
Help I'm traped in your ~/signature help me!       -- Joe Slater

More information about the License-discuss mailing list