<div>Larry,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Looking forward to seeing those outcomes from the board.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Also - most software writers don't want to be license writers -
they much prefer to be able to take a sensible proven license
template and quickly use it for their needs - and I sense that is the
gap that needs to be addressed here.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Thanks, DW<BR><BR>"The way to be is to do" - Confucius (551-472
B.C.)<BR></div>
<DIV id=wmMessageComp name="wmMessageComp"><BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 8px; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; BORDER-LEFT:
blue 2px solid">-------- Original Message --------<BR>Subject: RE:
ZDNet article - why attribution matters<BR>From: "Lawrence Rosen"
<lrosen@rosenlaw.com><BR>Date: Tue, November 28, 2006 11:11
am<BR>To: "'David RR Webber (XML)'" <david@drrw.info><BR>Cc:
"'David Berlind'" <David.Berlind@cnet.com>,
"'John-Sugar'"<BR><john@sugarcrm.com>,
<license-discuss@opensource.org><BR><BR>
<STYLE>
#wmMessageComp v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
#wmMessageComp o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
#wmMessageComp w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
#wmMessageComp .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</STYLE>
<STYLE>
#wmMessageComp /* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
#wmMessageComp /* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, #wmMessageComp li.MsoNormal, #wmMessageComp div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
#wmMessageComp a:link, #wmMessageComp span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
#wmMessageComp a:visited, #wmMessageComp span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
#wmMessageComp span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
color:black;}
#wmMessageComp @page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
#wmMessageComp div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
</STYLE>
<DIV class=Section1>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in"><FONT face="Times New
Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">The job of OSI is to
mitigate that and provide clear guidelines and boundaries for people to
operate in so that they can anticipate and expect reliable and
consistent results when they release their open source in a particular
way. This ultimately fosters a healthy and thriving community of
practice.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<div><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=black size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR:
black"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></div>
<div><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=black size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: black">Which is, I believe, the whole
point. I'm looking forward to those clear guidelines and boundaries
being set through this discussion and the resulting board decision.
Like David Berlind, I can appreciate both sides to this. What's
essential, though, is that this process works to a conclusion, not that
we leave "open source" to the whims of license
writers.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></div>
<div><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=black size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR:
black"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></div>
<div><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=black size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR:
black">/Larry<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></div>
<div><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=black size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR:
black"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></div>
<DIV style="BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP:
medium none; PADDING-LEFT: 4pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: blue
1.5pt solid; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none">
<DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="TEXT-ALIGN: center" align=center><FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<HR tabIndex=-1 align=center width="100%" SIZE=3>
</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<div><B><FONT face=Tahoma size=2><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold;
FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma">From:</SPAN></FONT></B><FONT
face=Tahoma size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma">
David RR Webber (XML) [mailto:david@drrw.info] <BR><B><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Sent:</SPAN></B> Tuesday, November 28, 2006
8:00 AM<BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To:</SPAN></B>
lrosen@rosenlaw.com<BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT:
bold">Cc:</SPAN></B> 'David Berlind'; 'John-Sugar';
license-discuss@opensource.org<BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT:
bold">Subject:</SPAN></B> RE: ZDNet article - why attribution
matters</SPAN></FONT><o:p></o:p></div></DIV>
<div><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE:
12pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></div>
<DIV>
<div><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE:
12pt">Larry,<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></div></DIV>
<DIV>
<div><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE:
12pt"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></div></DIV>
<DIV>
<div><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">I
think this cuts to the point of - what is the purpose of open
source?<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></div></DIV>
<DIV>
<div><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE:
12pt"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></div></DIV>
<DIV>
<div><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE:
12pt">The person publishing the source has very clear reasons why they
are doing that and how they expect people to use that
source.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></div></DIV>
<DIV>
<div><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE:
12pt"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></div></DIV>
<DIV>
<div><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE:
12pt">Other people then wish to retroactively bend that into
something different - usually without the permission of the
author, or perhaps as an unintended or unanticipated action beyond what
the author original envisioned! This generates friction, or
sometimes pleasant surprises - but not always! ;
-)<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></div></DIV>
<DIV>
<div><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE:
12pt"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></div></DIV>
<DIV>
<div><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE:
12pt">The job of OSI is to mitigate that and provide clear
guidelines and boundaries for people to operate in so that they can
anticipate and expect reliable and consistent results when they release
their open source in a particular
way.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></div></DIV>
<DIV>
<div><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE:
12pt">This ultimately fosters a healthy and thriving community of
practice.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></div></DIV>
<DIV>
<div><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE:
12pt"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></div></DIV>
<DIV>
<div><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE:
12pt">DW<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></div></DIV>
<DIV>
<div><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE:
12pt"><BR>"The way to be is to do" - Confucius (551-472
B.C.)<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></div></DIV>
<DIV id=wmMessageComp name="wmMessageComp">
<BLOCKQUOTE style="BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in;
BORDER-TOP: medium none; MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; PADDING-LEFT: 5pt;
MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; MARGIN-LEFT: 4.8pt;
BORDER-LEFT: blue 1.5pt solid; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium
none">
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 12pt"><FONT face="Times New
Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE:
12pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<div><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE:
12pt">-------- Original Message --------<BR>Subject: RE: ZDNet article
- why attribution matters<BR>From: "Lawrence Rosen"
<lrosen@rosenlaw.com><BR>Date: Mon, November 27, 2006 9:50
pm<BR>To: "'John-Sugar'"
<john@sugarcrm.com>,<BR><license-discuss@opensource.org><BR>Cc:
"'David Berlind'" <David.Berlind@cnet.com><BR><BR>Hi
John,<BR><BR>The issue isn't just "Why attribution matters," because it
obviously does.<BR>Attribution is already mentioned in lots of FOSS
licenses. Attribution is<BR>important to every author, not just
commercial ones who work for a living<BR>(although most do!). Notice of
authorship is so important that the US<BR>Copyright Act even makes the
fraudulent removal of a copyright notice a<BR>criminal offense. 17 USC
506(d). <BR><BR>We should instead be asking: How much attribution is
enough? How much<BR>attribution can be demanded in an open source
license? <BR><BR>I don't believe anyone has argued yet that Sugar's
license crosses the line.<BR>Most of us simply aren't sure where the
line should be drawn. You can<BR>legally require in a software license
that licensees put neon signs on the<BR>highway to announce your
copyrighted work, but is that open source?<BR><BR>/Larry
Rosen<BR><BR><BR>> -----Original Message-----<BR>> From:
John-Sugar [mailto:john@sugarcrm.com]<BR>> Sent: Monday, November
27, 2006 3:29 PM<BR>> To: license-discuss@opensource.org<BR>>
Subject: ZDNet article - why attribution matters<BR>> <BR>>
<BR>> OSI,<BR>> <BR>> I took a couple of days off from email
last week so I'm just now providing<BR>> our perspective in the
talkback forum. I thought David's recent ZDNet<BR>> article gave
fair coverage to this important issue. For the record though,<BR>>
there are far more projects adopting attribution clauses then the
select<BR>> few<BR>> David calls out. I hope my response below
will shed one more view point on<BR>> why attribution benefits vs.
hurts great open source projects.<BR>> <BR>> John Roberts<BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> News Discussion: Are SugarCRM,
Socialtext, Zimbra, Scalix and others<BR>> abusing<BR>> the term
"open source?"<BR>> <BR>> TalkBack 24 of 24:<BR>>
<BR>> Previous message<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Attribution, why it matters<BR>>
David,<BR>> I thought your article was very good based on the
complexity of this<BR>> issue.<BR>> Below is my perspective as
someone who felt compelled to add an<BR>> attribution<BR>> clause
to our license in late 2004. I think we were the first to add
this<BR>> clause to the MPL. It appears now that almost every open
source project<BR>> with<BR>> significant engineering salaries
are also seeing attribution as a small<BR>> request in return for
writing and open source licensing their code - all<BR>> of<BR>>
which is hard work. In fact almost every new open source project
feels<BR>> compelled to protect their identity in some way, not
necessarily for<BR>> monetary reasons though. I do find it very
interesting that most folks who<BR>> seem to take issue with this
attribution provisions are 'individuals' who<BR>> do<BR>> not
write any code themselves (but yet who seem to love the
creative<BR>> commons<BR>> attribution license).<BR>> <BR>>
Backgrounder, I did not initially want to add the attribution clause
at<BR>> all..<BR>> Fact is you can only work for free for so many
months, and I and my two<BR>> co-founders, Clint and Jacob all had
pregnant wives at the time when we<BR>> first decided to resign from
our jobs at E.piphnay and founded the<BR>> SugarCRM<BR>> project
and initially worked for free. We have been very upfront, I
think,<BR>> in calling ourselves 'commercial open source' - it's
even a part of our<BR>> logo. Why? Because we do not want to try and
fool anyone that writing<BR>> software full time is free.<BR>>
<BR>> The fact is there is a very ugly side to open source
redistribution. There<BR>> are plenty of hosting providers, SI's,
etc. that look at open source<BR>> licensed software as 'free'
software for them to go and 'sell'. They take<BR>> no<BR>> issue
with removing all identifying marks off the software and will
even<BR>> go<BR>> so far as to violate the open source licenses
and remove copyright<BR>> statements. We were finding ourselves in
this position in late 2004 after<BR>> putting in another intense
effort to ship a new release of Sugar. These<BR>> folks were simply
lifting our identifying marks and 'pretending to the<BR>> world'
that they wrote software that they indeed had not. They also had
no<BR>> intention at all of adding to the SugarCRM project since
that showed they<BR>> weren't the original authors of the
software.<BR>> <BR>> What is interesting is that these folks all
use the argument that 'they<BR>> are<BR>> pure open source
coders' - which is only the case for maybe 2% to 3% of<BR>> them.
For those folks who are actually writing code that takes the
project<BR>> forward, I do agree that we would all be better off
without the<BR>> attribution<BR>> clause. But.for the 98% of
folks that are just looking for more free<BR>> software to sell or
host - yes, the attribution clause does piss them off.<BR>> Because
the last thing they want is for the end user to think that they<BR>>
did<BR>> not write the code themselves. I've been amazed how such a
small clause<BR>> could become such an effective deterrent. As an
example, you write a book<BR>> (software) and open source license
it. You allow folks to rename the title<BR>> and author on the
cover. And that's all they change. This is an every day<BR>>
reality, and it's not fair. But authors can use the creative
commons<BR>> attribution license, one of the most widely utilized
licenses on the<BR>> planet<BR>> but OSI does not have a similar
provision.<BR>> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/<BR>>
<BR>> Our implementation, specifically the sugar attribution clause,
only points<BR>> to www.sugarforge.org. You can not buy anything on
this site, so it is in<BR>> no<BR>> way advertising. If you want
more free open source extensions or to start<BR>> participating
yourself, click the link. Ultimately this is not an issue<BR>>
for<BR>> a self appointed group to decide for the rest of us. Open
source code is a<BR>> voluntary movement, if folks do not like the
clause, they don't have to<BR>> use<BR>> the software. I do think
it is important that end users do understand the<BR>> revenue stream
(funding) of the code base. I've found our most hardened<BR>> Sugar
Open Source users are our most vocal Sugar Professional
advocates.<BR>> Why? Because the more successful SugarCRM is, the
more open source code we<BR>> will write and the more resources we
can invest in our open source sites.<BR>> <BR>> Lastly, I do
think though, taking a bunch of other folk's code, say >50%<BR>>
at<BR>> a minimum and adding an attribution clause is not a good use
of the<BR>> clause.<BR>> The only reason we felt it was ok to add
it was because we wrote the Sugar<BR>> Open Source code base from
scratch. Any additional libraries we may use<BR>> are<BR>> fully
attributed in the about box of the software. Attribution goes
both<BR>> ways.<BR>> <BR>> John Roberts<BR>> <BR>>
Posted by: john-sugar Posted on: 11/27/06<BR>> <BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>>
------<BR>> <BR>> From: Google Alerts
[mailto:googlealerts-noreply@google.com]<BR>> Sent: Tuesday,
November 21, 2006 1:14 PM<BR>> To: john@sugarcrm.com<BR>>
Subject: Google Alert - sugarcrm<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
Google News Alert for: sugarcrm<BR>> <BR>> Are SugarCRM,
Socialtext, Zimbra, Scalix and other abusing the ...<BR>> ZDNet -
USA<BR>> ... A growing number of software providers including
SugarCRM, Socialtext,<BR>> Scalix, and Zimbra have taken it upon
themselves create their own<BR>> derivatives of the ...<BR>>
<BR>> <BR>>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>>
------<BR>> <BR>> This once a day Google Alert is brought to
you by Google.<BR>> <BR>> Remove this alert.<BR>> Create
another alert.<BR>> Manage your alerts.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
<BR>> --<BR>> View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/ZDNet-article---why-<BR>>
attribution-matters-tf2715092.html#a7570290<BR>> Sent from the
OpenSource - License-Discuss mailing list archive at<BR>>
Nabble.com.
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></div></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>