<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr"><blockquote type="cite">On Mar 26, 2020, at 8:02 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@berkus.org> wrote:<br><br></blockquote></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><span>On 3/26/20 7:48 PM, McCoy Smith wrote:</span><br><blockquote type="cite"><span>If AAL is a candidate for removal, should *all* licenses which have that</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>sort of attribution requirement also be removed?</span><br></blockquote><span></span><br><span>If you know of other licenses we passed with badgeware requirements,</span><br><span>please name them. Because yes, they should all be candidates for removal.</span><br><span></span><br><span>Note that, for example, the GPLv3 requirement isn't a "badgeware"</span><br><span>requirement, because it gives makers of derivative works flexibility in</span><br><span>exactly how the software is attributed. One of the chief problems with</span><br><span>badgeware requirements like the AAL is that it effectively prevents</span><br><span>downstream developers from ever removing the GUI from the program, or</span><br><span>from running it on an embedded system (thus violating OSD6 and/or OSD10).</span><br><span></span><br><span>-- </span><br></div></blockquote><a href="https://lwn.net/Articles/243841/">https://lwn.net/Articles/243841/</a></body></html>