[License-discuss] License which requires watermarking? (Attribution Provision)

[ldr ldr]

Thanks, I've seen it in a few open-source projects, such as:

http://www.nopcommerce.com/licensev3.aspx
http://www.mvcforum.com/license

But this isn't well received by the open-source community, and would not be
OSI approved?

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 8:02 AM, Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com> wrote:

> Quoting Johnny Solbu (johnny at solbu.net):
>
> > You can also look at the various «Creative Commons» licenses. If I'm
> > not mistaken, all of them require attribution.
>
> They require keeping copyright notices intact and provide the name of
> the original author, etc., which credit may be 'implemented in any
> reasonable manner', etc.  Details for SA-BY 3.0 here:
> https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode (4a, 4b).
>
> However, I would hope that any work with elaborate copyright notices on
> every UI screen would be regarded as noxious and widely ignored.
> We've seen that sort of tactic before.
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at opensource.org
> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20121219/a9d9bff4/attachment.html>