<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8">
<META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/3.10.0">
</HEAD>
<BODY>
On Mon, 2006-12-04 at 14:30 -0800, Ross Mayfield wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<PRE>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">I think limiting the attribution affordance for licensors will bring</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">us back where we started (or are today, a day when yet another open</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">source company launched with MPL + attribution), and a license that is</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">designing what is "appropriate" is designing software, if not choosing</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">technology.</FONT>
</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
Again, the idea is to NOT restrict technology/use by explicitly saying attribution in appropriate places are not required in headless or NON GUI circumstances. Hence the suggested language (if such a splash screen or ... exist).<BR>
<BR>
Allowing the broad ability to do attribution via any method the original author determines (I think your proposed language intends this, yes?) would clearly open the door for badgeware. ie, without explicitly limiting the "nature" of the attribution it could become exceptionally onerous. ESPECIALLY since this provision is meant to be considered as an addendum to any OSI license it should be considered carefully. <BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<PRE>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">Is striking the example language, "(e.g., splash screen or banner</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">text)" a considerable compromise?</FONT>
</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually, I would suggest the opposite. Changing the wording to ensure that licensors can not impose onerous conditions would likely explicitly identify those places and not grant anything else. ie, Attribution required can only be required on a splash screen, about page, online help, etc.<BR>
<BR>
Does the compromised wording I've suggested put us at an impass? ie, attribution is only acceptable to you (and others) if it's on every UI screen and attribution is only acceptable to me (and others) if it's restricted to appropriate places. <BR>
<BR>
I'm losing my stamina for advocating against badgeware; the Tsunami of VC dollars behind this issue is formidable. I've made the case that the type of attribution desired is NOT in line with the Open Source effect; I'm guessing the OSI Board has to sort the issue themselves now. <BR>
<BR>
I've resigned to accept that open source may become a bit more "caveat emptor" and acronyms like CTFL (Check the Frickin License) may be part of "Getting Started with Open Source" articles/guides/etc. I PERSONALLY am okay in that world, because I know licensing (fairly) well. For every one of me, there are 10,000 users/buyers/developers that will need to know how to CTFL. C'est la vie.<BR>
<BR>
We can all still get along and have a cup of tea; even if we disagree. I look forward to hearing what the OSI Board sorts out with this proposal.<BR>
<BR>
Kind Regards,<BR>
Nick
</BODY>
</HTML>