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

ldr ldr stackoverflowuser95 at gmail.com
Mon Dec 24 12:05:08 UTC 2012

I have noticed that a lot of the discussion occurring is on section 7
of the GPL license; so I feel the need to alleviate those concerns and
tell you outright that what I am considering for my SaaS Startup.

I.e.: FreeBSD license with two added provisions:

1. "Badgeware" (as you call it) requirement, i.e.: that every page of
the site and mobile-apps' have a copyright area which contains:
        "Powered by [project name](github.com/projectname)" or
"Powered by [new project name]() a fork of [project
2. A carefully worded closure of the: "ASP loophole"

Given these conditions, which license is most aligns to my
requirements? - And would it be considered "open-source"?

On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 9:05 AM, Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com> wrote:
> Minor correction (proving that I shouldn't post to these subjects in a
> hurry while working on other things):
> > Getting back to what I was groggily trying to say last night:  My sense
> > is that OSI's approval of CPAL back in '07 was motivated in part by a
> > perception that a modest badgeware requirement was one arguably
> > reasonable method for giving reciprocal licensing enforcement power in
> > ASP/SaaS deployment, and that Socialtext's CPAL proposal wasn't so
> > extreme in its requirements as to preemptively kill third-party
> > commercial competition the way badgeware licensing usually does (the OSD
> > #3 concern I cited).
>   ^^
> Intended reference was OSD #6 (discrimination against fields of
> endeavour).
> Creative steps to cripple commercial reuse rights for others are a
> recurring theme, I notice.
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at opensource.org
> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

More information about the License-discuss mailing list