I agree with John's point regarding that the fact that a BSD-style 
advertising clause should not create an OSD problem, but likely would be 
incompatible with the GPL.  Still, my reading of the primary objection 
against the use of an "advertising clause" in free/open source software 
licenses is a prediction that downstream users/licensees would proliferate 
similar clauses inappropriately. A carefully drafted  license could prevent 
that messy result.

- Rod
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.

...... Original Message .......
On Wed, 19 May 2004 00:39:00 -0700 Claire Giordano 
>I am wondering what you all think about the following open source 
>license possibilities.  Input much appreciated.  Thanks.
>1. I'd like to know what you would think about an open source license
>    that required derived works to provide attribution to the open source
>    community from which the works are derived.
>    Contributor source file attribution appears to be common in the open
>    source world, and I've also seen requirements for attribution in the
>    written documentation.
>    I'm wondering how feasible it would be to require people creating and
>    distributing derived works to advertise (if they advertise)
>    that their derived work was "based on the open source technology" in
>    question.
>2. I've heard that some community members might find an advertising
>    attribution requirement unpalatable.  So I'm considering whether
>    the license should also contain a non-discriminatory buy-out clause
>    for anyone who found the advertising attribution unpalatable (for
>    a fee.)
>    It's important to me to be fair and to give credit (in a visible,
>    memorable way, which documentation and fine-print attribution
>    sometimes are not) to the open source origin of derived works.  I'm
>    trying to find a way to do so fairly, within the context of an OSI
>    approved license.
>Claire Giordano
>license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

Reply via email to