For Approval: Common Public Attribution License (CPAL)

[Matthew Flaschen]

Ross Mayfield wrote:
>> It was written in response to click-wrap.  However, it was not written
>> to be specific to click-wrap.  Rather, it determined what the problem
>> was (click-wrap clauses limited flexibility in technology and
>> interface), and decided such constraints were generally unacceptable.
> 
> This is not really correct: OSD 10 was focused on a particular
> problem. You can't arbitrarily apply it to a very different issue.

If it was meant to apply only to click-wrap, why wasn't the term written
to be specific to click-wrap?

> Clickwraps require technology which may not be available. We have
> carefully limited our requirements. For example, you expressed
> particular concern about the "graphics" requirement (which is part of
> the APL): yet we have limited the requirement to "graphic user
> interfaces" which by their nature can accommodate graphics.

Not arbitrary graphics.  My phone certainly has a GUI, but except for
icons it can generally only display one graphic at a time (that means
combining two CAPL programs is probably impossible).  And many logos
simply wouldn't fit.  This is the violation of OSD #10.

>> Reasonable's the key word, isn't it...  It means "unreasonable" author
>> attribution requirements can be removed (because "All other
>> non-permissive additional terms are considered "further restrictions"
>> within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you received it, or
>> any part of it, purports to be governed by this License, supplemented by
>> a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term.").
>>
>> Whether a required graphic is reasonable under GPLv3 is debatable, but I
>> think not given how interface-neutral the "Appropriate Legal Notices"
>> requirement is.  Several people, including me, have also commented that
>> 7.b may be too broad.  In three days, the final license will come out,
>> and we will see whether this wording survives.
> 
> This response is inconsistent with your earlier complaints about the
> APL.

What response?

 The GPLv3 is probably the most intensively reviewed license ever
> developed (certainly in open source) and the drafters
> decided that attribution should be included.

They decided some form of reasonable attribution is acceptable.  I don't
believe they intended arbitrary logos qualify.

> Many other open source licenses might have included attribution if 
> they had considered it.  And your comment about the Appropriate Legal Notices being "interface
> neutral" is wrong.

All it says is "each must display Appropriate Legal Notices".  That is
defined as "An interactive user interface displays “Appropriate Legal
Notices” to the extent that it includes a convenient and prominently
visible feature that (1) displays [...]" It doesn't say whether it must
be printed on program startup, displayed on a splash screen, made a menu
option, or printed at the bottom of every screen.

> If the drafters of GPLv3 wanted to make it interface neutral they could have done so. They did not even mention
> the issue.

That's what makes it neutral.  If they described a required form, it
wouldn't be.  CAPL is also interface-neutral in this sense for GUIs,
since it doesn't say how or where the attribution info must be displayed
(this is a major improvement over previous incarnations).  However, it
requires much more material (including graphics) be shown.

> it assumes that multiple entities will decide to use CPAL and demand
attribution. We are
> skeptical that this situation will arise.

When possible, OSI avoids approving licenses that are intended to remain
unpopular.

> If it does arise, we believe that the licensors will be practical enough to work it out.

Requiring manual relicensing does not indicate an adequate license.

> This statement is simply incorrect. The purpose of OSI which is
> clearly stated on the website: the goal is not expressed in terms of
> protecting the rights of different constituencies because everyone is
> a user of some type.

No, it isn't expressed that way.  I was giving my interpretation.

> And OSI has not been operating solely focused on
> "users": the focus on decreasing the number of approved licenses and
> establishing categories of licenses are directly aimed at developers.

As I said, I consider developers users as well.

> I still don't understand your reply. The issue is what the user base
> in general will know not your personal knowledge. You have not
> provided any factual basis for this assertion.

Fair enough.  I don't think either of us have formal market research to
back up our views, so I'm not going to argue this further.

>> Maybe, but the OSD is certainly not based on "the realities of the
>> industry".  It is based on the Debian Free Software Guidelines; DFSG
>> dates back to before there was a substantial open source industry, when
>> it was drafted to specify essential user freedoms.
> 
> The OSI has clearly stated its purpose on its site which is not
> consistent with your statement.

The OSD was certainly not drafted by OSI to satisfy "realities of the
industry"; it was copied very closely from DFSG.  However, you are right
that OSI does more than maintain the OSD.

> The Larger Work provision is parallel to the provision on notices in
> the MPL as well as numerous other licenses, so I don't understand the
> basis for your statement.

There's nothing wrong with the Larger Work provision, except in CAPL it
makes more programs subject an attribution (since Larger Works are not
necessarily derivative works of the program requiring attribution).
This makes combining programs still less practical.

> CPAL permits modifications and derived works. It permits them to be
> distributed under the same terms. You mentioned in your last email
> that the "splash screen" could be "slowed" to a slide show which would
> be a violation of OSD 3. First,  I don't understand how this effects
> OSD 3.

It will eventually makes merging multiple programs impractical due to
the amount of attribution required.  You're right that this kind of
attribution is not a blatant violation of OSD #3, but it makes it much
more difficult to exercise the right of modification.

 Second, you can have more than one attribution on a splash
> screen, so I think that your hypothetical is not likely.

It's possible, though.  Consider how many programs are in a Larger Work
like GNU/Linux.  If each of them required CAPL-style attribution there
would certainly be a long slide show.

 Finally, the
> splash screen is merely one among a number of options for attribution.

Yes, but I think it's the most convenient (since the attribution only
shows once).

Matt Flaschen