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

[Andrew C. Oliver]

I guess my objective is to boil the arguments down to their metal ATM.

I started out disagreeing with this #6 argument, but now can be 
convinced of this for completely different reasons.  I feel that some of 
the reasoning is flawed, I don't think THIS license (as I read its 
intent structural issues aside) makes business use impossible to the 
extent that it would violate #6.  Though I accept that the burden posed 
by similar licenses may do so (persistent display), I don't think this 
one does. 

Here is my #6 and possibly #1 argument

Doesn't brand logo display probably have a real monetary value?  Meaning 
if I were
drawing up a balance sheet and HTTPD had to display the Bunisoft logo on 
every HTML web page it served (probably using mod-rewrite VOODOO) and I 
took Bunisoft public --
wouldn't that show up on the books?  Probably.  Would being cited in a 
buried text file
or one of 1000 starup messages at Linux boot?  Probably not.  As don't 
displays on
sponsor pages of clubs and expressions of gratitude on apache.org for 
instance.

However, there is a practical problem.  Depending on the size and 
message contained in the logo -- it COULD run afoul:

1. "This software is supported by clubbing baby seals" with a cartoonish 
display of a baby seal being clubbed... would probably prevent the 
sierra club and others from using my software.

2. "Hummer drivers all will burn in hell" with a caricature of a hummer 
driver on fire -- would prevent Hummer, athiests groups and other groups 
from using the software.

3. An inordinately LARGE logo could be of monetary value and could make 
the software impractical to use in business even if only on the splash 
screen. 

If these are valid arguments then you have to then accept the 
impracticality of any logo attribution license unless OSI is going to 
get in the business of evaluating each logo itself to see if when used 
it runs afoul of the OSD...unless you believe in "self-policing" ;-)

You can argue the same is true of AAL (which its non-compliance with 10 
has been stated) and to a lesser degree of BSD in that I could name my 
organization BabySealClubbersOfCanada or that the Humane Society isn't 
going to license software attributed to the National Rifle Association 
-- but the amount of trouble one has to go to in order to have one of 
these issues is much greater.  Indeed the burden of this has not been 
too great as shown by the massive UNIX copyright statements from back in 
the day where often competitors credited each other textually in the 
part no one notices or bothers to read.  I would argue that might have 
been different in the case of logos.

Thoughts?

-Andy

Rick Moen wrote:
> [Sorry about several typos and omitted words in my reply to Andrew Buni,
> just posted.  7:30 AM is a appalling and uncivilised time to be up;
> I probably should have saved my draft for review when my brain's unfrozen.]
>
> Quoting Ben Tilly (btilly at gmail.com):
>
>   
>>> 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.
>>     
>
> I agree that you don't buy it.
>
>   
>> 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!
>>     
>
> It appears that licence-discuss must go through remedial licence
> analysis from time to time, e.g., the frequently re-explained point
> that, no, copyleft licensing is not construed to be "discrimination
> against a field of endeavour", as creation of proprietary derivative
> works is not a right necessary to fully _use_ the codebase for any
> purpose whateover, and since copyright obligations, if reasonable in
> nature, don't impair that use either.
>
> Please see my separate reply to Andrew Buni.  It's _basic_ to the notion
> of open source that all users of a codebase are supposed to be granted
> the right to exploit its use fully in all usage scenarios, specifically
> including commerce.  OSI makes a particular point of stressing those 
> commerce rights in OSD #6 and elsewhere, because of the past popularity
> of "Hey, you can look at the source code; why on earth do you insist on 
> commercial rights, too?" licences like NCSA Mosaic's.
>
> Anyway, it's utterly unquestionable that the Exhibit B licences are
> aiming to make it so unattractive to use the code for commercial use
> that nobody but the copyright holder does so.  They even say so, as
> Nicholas Goodman pointed out!
>
>   
>> People are ALLOWED to use the software, they just don't WANT to.
>>     
>
> Sorry, this is a sham notion of open source.  I'm not even going to
> spend time pointing out your error.  Figure it out for yourself.
>
>   


-- 
No PST Files Ever Again
Buni Meldware Communication Suite
Email, Calendaring, ease of configuration/administration
http://buni.org