[License-discuss] REMOVE AAL from list of approved licenses

[McCoy Smith]

> On Mar 26, 2020, at 8:02 PM, Josh Berkus <josh at berkus.org> wrote:
> 
> On 3/26/20 7:48 PM, McCoy Smith wrote:
>> If AAL is a candidate for removal, should *all* licenses which have that
>> sort of attribution requirement also be removed?
> 
> If you know of other licenses we passed with badgeware requirements,
> please name them.  Because yes, they should all be candidates for removal.
> 
> Note that, for example, the GPLv3 requirement isn't a "badgeware"
> requirement, because it gives makers of derivative works flexibility in
> exactly how the software is attributed.  One of the chief problems with
> badgeware requirements like the AAL is that it effectively prevents
> downstream developers from ever removing the GUI from the program, or
> from running it on an embedded system (thus violating OSD6 and/or OSD10).
> 
> -- 
https://lwn.net/Articles/243841/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20200326/4f70370a/attachment-0001.html>