[License-discuss] License which requires watermarking? (Attribution Provision)
rick at linuxmafia.com
Tue Jan 1 04:33:29 UTC 2013
Sorry, I left out a crucial word:
> As I said, I for one consider such badge-on-every-UI-screen licensing to
> effectively violate OSD #6 (discrimination against fields of
> endeavour), in that the every-UI-screen requirement cripples third-party
> competing use.
As I said upthread, I don't think there's any bright line distinguishing
the degree and prominence of runtime acknowledgement in
SaaS/ASP/whatever code required for attribution (non-concealed
authorship credit), on the one hand, from mandatory advertising of one's
competitor, on the other: There's a continuum.
My point, though, is that a badge-on-every-UI-screen clause lies
decidedly at the latter end of that spectrum. If SaaS entrepeneurs were
indeed serious about merely seeking attribution, they should be
satisfied with CPAL's _much_ more modest but clear requirement of a
runtime acknowledgement. The history of the past five years has proven
that, by and large, they aren't.
I conclude that, in general, the overwhelming majority of such
entrepreneurs are thus seeking the crippling of competing commercial
reuse -- not just attribution. So, OSI should give them the bum's rush.
More information about the License-discuss