<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<br>
Reading the arguments I get the strong impression that many feel an
attribution provision is not supporting the general open source idea,
but there is no definition that limits an attribution provision. But it
doesn't make sense to use #10 as a stick to try and get rid of those
provisions. Just to go back one step, the home page of opensource.org
clearly states:<br>
<br>
<p>" The <strong>basic idea behind open source</strong> is very
simple: When programmers can read, redistribute, and modify the source
code for a piece of software, the software evolves. People improve it,
people adapt it, people fix bugs. And this can happen at a speed that,
if one is used to the slow pace of conventional software development,
seems astonishing."</p>
<p>and it also states:<br>
</p>
<p>"Open Source Initiative exists to make this case to the commercial
world."<br>
</p>
<p>The key issue here is that providing the possibility to add an
attribution provision doesn't hurt the basic idea (if enough
contributors accept it) and it certainly helps making a case to the
commercial world. Especially smaller companies (entrepeneurs with low
marketing power) will look for open source to improve software and to
develop a market position. They'll put relatively large amounts of
investments themselves to develop the software and to build a business
around it. Some of them just can't accept the risk that a big company
with monopolistic behavior takes their work and investments and use
their marketing power to make it seem like it's theirs. So OSI should
allow (and perhaps even support) attribution provisions to fulfill its
objectives and these objectives should take precedence above the ten
definitions - if reasonable attribution provisions don't comply with
#10 change #10 and develop specific rules with regards to attribution.<br>
</p>
<p>Just to give you an example: my company uses SugarCRM and in all
ways it feels like it's open source (although I now understand that
it's not OSI approved). It would be better for OSI to make sure (even
it it needs some subtle changes) that licenses provided by these
companies become accepted as otherwise more and more companies will
create non-approved open source licenses (something that is already
happening).<br>
</p>
<p>Referring to Andrew, it's not OSI's job to state when certain names
and/or logos are acceptable and when not. Let the market decide: I
don't think "This software is supported by clubbing baby seals" will
lead to many contributors and indeed it will limit the number of people
that would want to use it. There is no discrimination, everyone may use
it! If it's freely available without discrimination (it allows
everybody to use the software) than we have compliance with #6.<br>
<br>
</p>
<br>
<br>
Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid45B26E53.1080703@buni.org" type="cite">I guess my
objective is to boil the arguments down to their metal ATM.
<br>
<br>
I started out disagreeing with this #6 argument, but now can be
convinced of this for completely different reasons. I feel that some
of the reasoning is flawed, I don't think THIS license (as I read its
intent structural issues aside) makes business use impossible to the
extent that it would violate #6. Though I accept that the burden posed
by similar licenses may do so (persistent display), I don't think this
one does. <br>
Here is my #6 and possibly #1 argument
<br>
<br>
Doesn't brand logo display probably have a real monetary value?
Meaning if I were
<br>
drawing up a balance sheet and HTTPD had to display the Bunisoft logo
on every HTML web page it served (probably using mod-rewrite VOODOO)
and I took Bunisoft public --
<br>
wouldn't that show up on the books? Probably. Would being cited in a
buried text file
<br>
or one of 1000 starup messages at Linux boot? Probably not. As don't
displays on
<br>
sponsor pages of clubs and expressions of gratitude on apache.org for
instance.
<br>
<br>
However, there is a practical problem. Depending on the size and
message contained in the logo -- it COULD run afoul:
<br>
<br>
1. "This software is supported by clubbing baby seals" with a
cartoonish display of a baby seal being clubbed... would probably
prevent the sierra club and others from using my software.
<br>
<br>
2. "Hummer drivers all will burn in hell" with a caricature of a hummer
driver on fire -- would prevent Hummer, athiests groups and other
groups from using the software.
<br>
<br>
3. An inordinately LARGE logo could be of monetary value and could make
the software impractical to use in business even if only on the splash
screen. <br>
If these are valid arguments then you have to then accept the
impracticality of any logo attribution license unless OSI is going to
get in the business of evaluating each logo itself to see if when used
it runs afoul of the OSD...unless you believe in "self-policing" ;-)
<br>
<br>
You can argue the same is true of AAL (which its non-compliance with 10
has been stated) and to a lesser degree of BSD in that I could name my
organization BabySealClubbersOfCanada or that the Humane Society isn't
going to license software attributed to the National Rifle Association
-- but the amount of trouble one has to go to in order to have one of
these issues is much greater. Indeed the burden of this has not been
too great as shown by the massive UNIX copyright statements from back
in the day where often competitors credited each other textually in the
part no one notices or bothers to read. I would argue that might have
been different in the case of logos.
<br>
<br>
Thoughts?
<br>
<br>
-Andy
<br>
<br>
Rick Moen wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">[Sorry about several typos and omitted words
in my reply to Andrew Buni,
<br>
just posted. 7:30 AM is a appalling and uncivilised time to be up;
<br>
I probably should have saved my draft for review when my brain's
unfrozen.]
<br>
<br>
Quoting Ben Tilly (<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:btilly@gmail.com">btilly@gmail.com</a>):
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">About as far as a reasonable
interpretation of OSD #6 (in particular,
<br>
the freedom to reuse in commerce) suggests. Nicholas Goodman has
<br>
pointed out, in that connection, that "Exhibit B" firm MuleSource has
<br>
recently stated bluntly that its licence's _aim_ is to induce
commercial
<br>
users of its MPL + Exhibit B codebase to buy a "commercial licence",
<br>
instead:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.nicholasgoodman.com/bt/blog/2006/12/22/badgeware-ceo-to-community-buy-a-commercial-license/">http://www.nicholasgoodman.com/bt/blog/2006/12/22/badgeware-ceo-to-community-buy-a-commercial-license/</a>
<br>
</blockquote>
While I agree fully with the OSD #10 complaints, I don't buy this OSD
<br>
#6 complaint at all.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I agree that you don't buy it.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">A number of companies (eg MySQL) have
pursued dual-license strategies
<br>
using the GPL in a similar way. Does that make the GPL not open
<br>
source? Of course not!
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
It appears that licence-discuss must go through remedial licence
<br>
analysis from time to time, e.g., the frequently re-explained point
<br>
that, no, copyleft licensing is not construed to be "discrimination
<br>
against a field of endeavour", as creation of proprietary derivative
<br>
works is not a right necessary to fully _use_ the codebase for any
<br>
purpose whateover, and since copyright obligations, if reasonable in
<br>
nature, don't impair that use either.
<br>
<br>
Please see my separate reply to Andrew Buni. It's _basic_ to the
notion
<br>
of open source that all users of a codebase are supposed to be granted
<br>
the right to exploit its use fully in all usage scenarios, specifically
<br>
including commerce. OSI makes a particular point of stressing those
commerce rights in OSD #6 and elsewhere, because of the past popularity
<br>
of "Hey, you can look at the source code; why on earth do you insist on
commercial rights, too?" licences like NCSA Mosaic's.
<br>
<br>
Anyway, it's utterly unquestionable that the Exhibit B licences are
<br>
aiming to make it so unattractive to use the code for commercial use
<br>
that nobody but the copyright holder does so. They even say so, as
<br>
Nicholas Goodman pointed out!
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">People are ALLOWED to use the software,
they just don't WANT to.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Sorry, this is a sham notion of open source. I'm not even going to
<br>
spend time pointing out your error. Figure it out for yourself.
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>