[License-discuss] a GPLv3 compatible attribution for MIT/BSD?

[Clark C. Evans]

As an update to this thread, I've revived my interest in 
trying to keep GPLv3 compatibility with this approach;
a reasonable, attribution terms for a MIT derived license
or the GPLv3 itself (under 7b).

However, I've expanded the scope of this beyond simply 
crafting a license that requires attribution.  For this
sort of project to work, it requires community engagement
from the ground up -- even for works that don't have this
sort of requirement.  Hence, I've started an open source
project for effective attribution for OSS projects.  If 
you are interested, I'd love to have collaborators.

  http://tip-o-the-hat.org

In some ways, the license is dead last.  The order of 
priorities are:

1. Create a set of open source components that can be used
for the visual display of OSS attributions in a manner that
satisfies both the GPLv3 requirements as well as being 
broadly useful enough for projects to incorporate.

2. Create a registry of OSS works and dependencies with
pretty logos, license terms, and others.  This would be 
automated using various distribution manifests as possible.

3. Encourage adoption by open source projects even if such
an approach isn't mandated by any license -- it's just the
right thing to do.  I'm sure others will agree once it is
convenient and easy.

Then, only then, would there be sufficient community backing
to consider the need for licensing terms to enforce an 
emergent consensus on acceptable attribution practices for
those who might otherwise wish to not play along.   However,
these terms should have a clear interpretation as voluntarily
implemented by a wide variety of projects.

Thank you for listening.  I hope you might engage.

Best,

Clark