For Approval: Common Public Attribution License (CPAL)

[Matthew Flaschen]

Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Matthew Flaschen (matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu):
> 
>> Finally, these licenses don't define prominent as "of sufficient
>> duration to give reasonable notice to the user of the identity of the
>> Original Developer and (b) if You include Attribution Notice or
>> similar information for other parties, You must ensure that the
>> Attribution Notice for the Original Developer shall be no less
>> prominent than such Attribution Notice or similar information for the
>> other party."
>>
>> This definition is subjective (doesn't "sufficient duration" depend on
>> vision, age, attention, etc.) and at the least, could eventually
>> result in a profusion of attribution, slowing the splash screen into a
>> slideshow.  This is an OSD #3 problem, since it constrains practical
>> modification.
> 
> Non-sequitur conclusion, sir.

Yes, a bit.  I implied rather than stated.  /Any/ definition of
"sufficent duration" could eventually result in an unacceptable delay
due to attribution requirements as multiple CAPL programs are merged.
Shorter duration interpretations will only require more programs before
this happens.  The Larger Work option increases the number of programs
that can plausibly require attribution on a single interface.  This
disincentive to merge is the constraint I  meant to refer to.

> Like it or not, criteria requiring reasonable judgements in the applicable
> contexts are an inherent part of law and even of (gasp!) software
> engineering at times.  If "sufficient duration to give reasonable notice
> to the user of the identity of the Original Developer" bothers you,
> then you're going to _really_ hate the concept of "derivative work" in
> copyright law, for example.


Fair enough.

Matt Flaschen