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

[ldr ldr]

John: I'd be happy with proprietary forks, as long as the Attribution
provision would hold.

E.g.: if they sell it to other people, those other people still are
aware of my original project and have a link to it

On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 3:36 AM, John Cowan <cowan at mercury.ccil.org> wrote:
> ldr ldr scripsit:
>
>> 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
>> name](github.com/projectname"
>
> You have to word this very carefully, so that derivative works which
> don't have this type of user interface can still be in compliance.
>
>> 2. A carefully worded closure of the: "ASP loophole"
>
> The Affero GPL requires users who have access to the server to be
> able to download the source of the server software: see clause 13 of
> <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html>.  Beyond that, we are in
> unexplored territory.  In particular, it's not clear why you'd want to
> require server operators to provide their users with the freedom to obtain
> the source, when the BSD license generally permits proprietary forks.
>
> --
> La mayyitan ma qadirun yatabaqqa sarmadi                            John Cowan
> Fa idha yaji' al-shudhdhadh fa-l-maut qad yantahi.              cowan at ccil.org
>                 --Abdullah al-Hazred, Al-`Azif      http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at opensource.org
> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss