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

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Ben Tilly (btilly at gmail.com):

[OSD#6:]

> I am uncomfortable in attempting to read people's minds.  Let me go
> re-read the words instead. 

Make sure you read the posted rationale, too.  Oh wait, you didn't!  
So, it would probably, in that event, be futile to suggest you
reacquaint yourself with the history of what OSD#6 was intended to head
off.  Your loss.

> My understanding of those words, and the elucidating examples, both
> tell me that you can't tell people they _can't_ use the software.

So, a clause saying Andrew C. Oliver's example
(Http://blog.buni.org/blog/acoliver/opensource/2006/12/12/The-Buni-Special-Attribution-License-Proposal
) of an "Exhibit B" clause requiring works to include a big, red
dialogue in front of every screen saying "Ripped off from Buni.org
[logo] without permission" would not strike you as contravening OSD#6?
Andrew goes on:  "We'd of course allow folks who bought a special
SuperGoodVersion license to remove our dialog."

OK, it's good to know where you're coming from.  The rest of us can
attempt to apply a more nuanced understanding that takes into account
what OSD#6 was _intended_ to prevent, and acknowledges the declared
specific intention (see: eyebrow-raising MuleSource quotation) of
Exhibit B licences to make commercial reuse completely infeasible.

> >They have interfered with _usage_ in a way that creates two classes of
> >users, which is precisely what OSD #6 aims to delimit as outside the
> >definition of open source.
> 
> Au contraire.  The license creates one and only one class of users.

I'm not even going to attempt to debate that issue further, as you've
clearly gone transrational on this matter.

> Agreed.  Let the market decide.  

Again, hell no, bro'.  The OSI Board does.

If you simply don't like that, feel free to invent your own licensing
concept and certification process.