[License-discuss] Thoughts on AAL and OSS vs FOSS

[Syed Arsalan Hussain Shah]

>  *If the work has interactive user interfaces, each must display
Appropriate Legal Notices; however, if the Program has interactive
interfaces that do not display Appropriate Legal Notices, your work need
not make them do so.*

I never read GPL in this detail though and its interesting,  but those
legal notices also refers to attribution notice?

The alternative license besides AAL could be the CAL1.0 that has been
approved recently.

> You must retain all licensing, authorship, or attribution notices
contained in the Source Code (the “Notices”), and provide all such Notices
to each Recipient, together with a statement acknowledging the use of the
Work. Notices may be provided directly to a Recipient or via an
easy-to-find hyperlink to an Internet location also providing Access to
Source Code.

https://github.com/holochain/cryptographic-autonomy-license#43-provide-notices-and-attribution


>From this I assume  if someone adds an attribution notice in the source
code like 'developed by abc' the user using the software need to display
such a notice as it is part of source code.

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 2:16 PM Henrik Ingo <henrik.ingo at avoinelama.fi>
wrote:

> Hi Hillel
>
> First of all, thanks for taking the time to join this discussion. A key
> question for us is whether and how we can find projects using a license
> that is being suggested for removal / de-certification. It's encouraging to
> see news about this discussion reached you and you we willing to engage in
> this discussion.
>
> On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 8:39 PM Hillel Coren <hillelcoren at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi again,
>>
>> To follow up on my email yesterday... to start there many AAL projects on
>> GitHub.
>>
>> https://github.com/search?q=attribution+assurance+license&type=Code
>>
>
> That's interesting. One would hope a formal OSI process (where this
> discussion may be headed) would have found this too.
>
> If attribution based license are no longer considered OSS we'd need to
>> change our model to offer our core app as OSS and sell closed-source
>> modules to generate income. This is worse for everyone involved.
>>
>> With our current approach users have all the code, if they don't want to
>> pay to remove our branding they can simply comment out the code. With
>> separate modules that would no longer be possible.
>>
>> I would guess one of the goals of your organisation is to give more
>> people access to more code, removing these license could have the opposite
>> effect by making less code open-source.
>>
>> I have to add, I find it pretty ironic that your own site uses an
>> attribution based license, the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
>> International License :)
>>
>>
> Note by the way that I'm not the one actively for or against the AAL at
> the moment. But I do understand the objection people have raised against
> it. So I have a question for you, so that we could better understand your
> motivations:
>
> The specific text of the AAL that is problematic is this:
>
>
> *"each time the resultingexecutable program or a program dependent thereon
> is launched, aprominent display (e.g., splash screen or banner text) of the
> Author'sattribution information"*
>
> Attribution as such is not a problem for open source licenses. In fact
> it's quite common that some form of attribution is required! The problem
> here is that the license requires attribution in a too specific way. The
> Open Source Definition <https://opensource.org/osd-annotated> requires
> that licenses must not restrict the software to a specific technology. So
> for example, I should be allowed to copy your software and use it for
> technology that doesn't have a display at all. (A robot, or network
> router...)
>
> To compare, the GPL (which nobody is suggesting to remove) has a similar
> requirement without running into this problem:* "If the work has
> interactive user interfaces, each must display Appropriate Legal Notices;
> however, if the Program has interactive interfaces that do not display
> Appropriate Legal Notices, your work need not make them do so."*
>
> If there were an AAL 2.0 that had an attribution requirement like the GPL
> (and I could even imagine going a bit further without it being a problem
> for the OSD) then would you be willing to upgrade to such AAL 2.0?
>
> henrik
>
>
>
> --
> henrik.ingo at avoinelama.fi
> +358-40-5697354        skype: henrik.ingo            irc: hingo
> www.openlife.cc
>
> My LinkedIn profile: http://fi.linkedin.com/pub/henrik-ingo/3/232/8a7
> _______________________________________________
> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not
> necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the
> Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
>
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20200330/9b50886a/attachment.html>