[Fwd: FW: For Approval: Generic Attribution Provision]
Andrew C. Oliver
acoliver at buni.org
Thu Jan 4 04:24:07 UTC 2007
I'd much rather have more head on discussion on whether OSI should
certify pixel based attribution requirements at all and if so why and to
what limits (in my blog post referred to in Rich's article I attempted
to show the logical extreme) than start off with meaningless discussions
of theoretical ethical market democracy and name calling.
For my own position I obviously believe, regardless of whether OSI
ultimately approves licenses that say I must have a vendor's logo
constantly on the screen which links to their site, that they are not
open source and should never be called such and that OSI should not
approve such a license. I do not think the present
(http://www.opensource.org/licenses/attribution.php) goes too far
because the unqualified banner means it is no more intrusive than the
original BSD licenses. However, I think that some of the licenses under
consideration especially those that lay claim to specific screen real
estate run afoul of what can be practically open source (especially
since I cannot aggregate two which use the exact same license). I'd
argue that if you are truly that scared of people stealing your work
that you should not open the source in the first place.
Perhaps you disagree? Why? How far should OSI go with its definition
of "open source" with regards to pixel/link-based attribution?
Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Scythereal (scythereal at bitmeta.org):
>> Ironically, those are the principles the open source idea is against.
> Freedom to misappropriate the term "open source" when convenient (e.g.,
> for licences obviously designed to impair third-party commercial use)
> is, actually, not among our core values. Is it possible that you're
> confusing "open source" with "empty head"?
No PST Files Ever Again
Buni Meldware Communication Suite
Email, Calendaring, ease of configuration/administration
More information about the License-discuss