followup on the "obligation to cite" discussion

[Cengiz Gunay]

Hi,

This is a followup on the discussion I started in the license-review list. 
I was told it is the wrong place to ask a question about a possible 
extension to the AFL license, so here're my abridged responses to all the 
comments.

Thorsten and Bruce said that a mandatory citation is not 
open-source-compliant and it will create a hardship to cite every tool 
that is used in preparing a work. They and Dag-Erling also suggested that 
citations should not be mandatory and left to scholarly integrity of the 
licensees.

I somewhat agree with what was said and change my position from obligation 
to cite to merely "informing what to cite" in case they find it reasonable 
to cite my publications. So it would make sense for me to employ the 
current AFL 3.0 and follow Lawrence's advice to use the "attribution 
notice" included in every source file to specify a URL and an example 
citation.

However, this must be repeated in every file and creates a burden for me 
to duplicate it in every source file, and also probably needlessly 
increases the size of the software. Most importantly, if somebody just 
uses my software to get results and never looks into the source code, they 
will never see the attribution notice. So I would like to have this notice 
in a more prominent place, such as right before the AFL text in the same 
file, or at the end of the file. Do you think this will conflict with the 
integrity of the AFL license? I would obviously clearly separate the 
section from the main AFL text.

Thanks,
Cengiz Gunay
--
Postdoctoral Fellow
Prinz Lab, Dept. of Biology, Emory University
1510 Clifton Rd., Room 2172, Atlanta, GA 30322, U.S.A.
cgunay at emory.edu  cengique at users.sf.net 	cengique at yahoo.com
Lab: +1-404-727-9381	Home/Cell: +1-678-559-8694
http://userwww.service.emory.edu/~cgunay
ICQ# 21104923, cengique@{jabber.org,Skype}
--