For Approval: Common Public Attribution License (CPAL)

[Matthew Flaschen]

Ross Mayfield wrote:

> and we do not consider ourselves open source,

I think publicly ceasing to describe your product (and company) as open
source, pending your use of an OSI-approved license,  was a real
demonstration of good faith. Thank you.

> We have used the Adaptive Public License, which is virtually the sames as the
> prior attribution provision which was in Exhibit B of the proposed
> Socialtext Public License,  as the basis for the attribution provision
> because it was approved after OSD 10 was adopted.

Russ Nelson said, "Do not use the Adaptive Public License as a
precedent.  It is one of the worst licenses we ever approved."

I still feel that requiring all GUIs to display an arbitrary logo is an
OSD #10 violation.  Some GUIs can not display arbitrary images at all,
and others can only display small ones.  I see no evidence that anyone
considered such OSD #10 issues while APL was under consideration.
Really, it doesn't look like the license was thoughtfully considered at all.

> We have limited the placement requirement for attribution notice to
> "prominent"rather than a specified size or location. We have also
> permitted the use of splash screens.

Does this mean that the attribution can be on /only/ the splash screen?

 The term "prominent" is frequently used in other OSI
> approved licenses such as the GPL

This portion of the GPL is referring to source code notices.  It says,
"You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices".

The GPL does have a runtime attribution requirement (2.c), but this
doesn't require a graphic image, URL, or arbitrary phrase.  It also
doesn't specify form or require prominence.  The interface of GPL
software (if that clause is taken advantage of) need only have
summarized copyright and warranty information, with options for the user
to view details if they want to.

> and NASA Public License.

I assume you mean NASA Open Source Agreement, which says, "Each
Recipient must ensure that the following copyright notice appears
prominently in the Subject Software".  This requires only a copyright
notice, and it is not even clear that this must be visible during
runtime (rather than only prominent in the source code).

With CPAL, up to 10 words, an arbitrary graphic, an arbitrary URL, and
copyright notice must all be prominently displayed on a main interface.

Finally, these licenses don't define prominent as "of sufficient
duration to give reasonable notice to the user of the identity of the
Original Developer and (b) if You include Attribution Notice or similar
information for other parties, You must ensure that the Attribution
Notice for the Original Developer shall be no less prominent than such
Attribution Notice or similar information for the other party."

This definition is subjective (doesn't "sufficient duration" depend on
vision, age, attention, etc.) and at the least, could eventually result
in a profusion of attribution, slowing the splash screen into a slideshow.
This is an OSD #3 problem, since it constrains practical modification.

> Socialtext believes that the application software has special needs as compared
> to operating systems because of the application software can be used
> anonymously in large distributions

Again, this argument makes no sense.  First, the OSD is not about
satisfying "special needs" of any program or company; it is about
guaranteeing rights to users.  Besides, it is core operating system
software that is used anonymously.  Again, almost no users know who
wrote the ls utility or essential kernel drivers.  But I guarantee every
user of SocialText Enterprise Wiki (and even most users of rebranded
versions) know who wrote that; a wiki is big software, and it's hard to
use "anonymously" or ignore the author, even without attribution.
People do research when they install something as big as a wiki.

Thus, most know MediaWiki is sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation,
despite the fact that it requires no branding.

> and can be used to provide services through an ASP which does not provide modifications back to the
> community. None of the approved OSI approved licenses include both a
> network use provision and an attribution provision.

I'm kind of surprised Adaptive Public License didn't cram a network
provision in somewhere, but it looks like you're right.

Matt Flaschen