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

Rick Moen rick at linuxmafia.com
Wed Dec 19 04:58:16 UTC 2012

Quoting ldr ldr (stackoverflowuser95 at gmail.com):

> Thanks, I've seen it in a few open-source projects, such as:
> http://www.nopcommerce.com/licensev3.aspx
> http://www.mvcforum.com/license

Those are not open source.  Moreover:

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

"Badgeware' licensing was heavily lobbied for by a little incestuous^W
group of Web 2.0 startups for a while, several years back.  One
watered-down example was eventually approved mostly because -- my
interpretation -- the amount of intrusion onto the user experience had
been cut back to a modest mandatory notice on one screen only.  

As you have noticed, some firms have now adopted the clever if sleazy
-- my interpretation -- ploy of purporting to use GPLv3 but sliding a
mandatory badgeware notice requirement for every single UI page by
claiming those are Additional Terms within the meaning of GPLv3 clause

I personally think that is a total crock, and hope it gives rise to
litigation at some point:  Clause 7 is a mechanism for adding
_exceptions_ to the conditions GPLv3 would otherwise require.  The dodge
of claiming you can add _restrictions_ via that clause or similar
methods such as hanging a restriction off GPLv2 -- and the sheer
dishonesty of pretending that is still open source -- almost certainly
doesn't fool anyone.

I respect the publishers of outright proprietary software in many cases
a great deal, e.g., Opera Software ASA, my second-favourite set of crazy
Norwegians.  By contrast, companies that try to pull the above sort of
stunt, well:  not so much.

Cheers,                                        "He who hesitates is frost."
Rick Moen                                                 -- Inuit proverb
rick at linuxmafia.com  
McQ!  (4x80)

More information about the License-discuss mailing list