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

Ben Tilly btilly at gmail.com
Thu Jan 4 12:02:50 UTC 2007

On 1/3/07, Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com> wrote:
> Quoting Andrew C. Oliver (acoliver at buni.org):
> > How far should OSI go with its definition
> > of "open source" with regards to pixel/link-based attribution?
> About as far as a reasonable interpretation of OSD #6 (in particular,
> the freedom to reuse in commerce) suggests.  Nicholas Goodman has
> pointed out, in that connection, that "Exhibit B" firm MuleSource has
> recently stated bluntly that its licence's _aim_ is to induce commercial
> users of its MPL + Exhibit B codebase to buy a "commercial licence",
> instead:
> http://www.nicholasgoodman.com/bt/blog/2006/12/22/badgeware-ceo-to-community-buy-a-commercial-license/

While I agree fully with the OSD #10 complaints, I don't buy this OSD
#6 complaint at all.

A number of companies (eg MySQL) have pursued dual-license strategies
using the GPL in a similar way.  Does that make the GPL not open
source?  Of course not!  The fact that, say, many customers in the
embedded space find it unpalatable to abide by the GPL doesn't mean
that there is a discrimination against any field of endeavor.
Likewise with an attribution license.

People are ALLOWED to use the software, they just don't WANT to.  If
they're allowed, then in my view OSD #6 is satisfied.


More information about the License-discuss mailing list