Quoting Clark C. Evans (c...@clarkevans.com): > As an update to this thread, I've revived my interest in > trying to keep GPLv3 compatibility with this approach; > a reasonable, attribution terms for a MIT derived license > or the GPLv3 itself (under 7b).
The term 'attribution' tends to be used for a variety of different things, so you may wish to start there. Classically in software, it refers to copyright notices, e.g., in source code. In the last decade, the aforementioned group of Web 2.0 / SaaS hucksters started referring to mandatory runtime advertising as 'attribution', too -- a rather propagandistic sleight of tongue, in my view -- an approach that reached the pinnacle of absurdity with SugarCRM Community Edition 5.x's perversion of GPLv3, using clause 7b to re-implement the same obnoxious name-and-graphical-logo on every page requirement widely rejected in the openly badgeware licences that they claimed were open source. One of my analyses: http://linuxgazette.net/159/misc/lg/sugarcrm_and_badgeware_licensing_again.html Quoting: GPLv3 section 7 is _not_ about attribution provisions. It is about required legal notices (e.g., trademark) and other permitted supplementary terms. Clause 7b says that "Requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal Notices displayed by works containing it" are permitted, but I very much doubt that FSF had in mind required, immutable runtime display of trademarked logos and advertising on every user interface screen of the program and all derivatives -- which has the obvious effect of severely impairing freedom of third-party commercial use. An FSF author involved with the GPLv3 draft speaks to FSF's intent (FWIW): http://gplv3.fsf.org/additional-terms-dd2.html A GPL licensee may place an additional requirement on code for which the licensee has or can give appropriate copyright permission, but only if that requirement falls within the list given in subsection 7b. Placement of any other kind of additional requirement continues to be a violation of the license. Additional requirements that are in the 7b list may not be removed, but if a user receives GPL'd code that purports to include an additional requirement not in the 7b list, the user may remove that requirement. The literal wording of 7b is exactly as quoted above. Getting back to Clark's initiative: > 1. Create a set of open source components that can be used > for the visual display of OSS attributions in a manner that > satisfies both the GPLv3 requirements as well as being > broadly useful enough for projects to incorporate. 'Visual display of OSS attributions' required via GPLv3 clause 7b sounds a whole lot like the aforementioned Web 2.0 / SaaS notion of 'attribution' and difficult to distinguish from what SugarCRM did in its 5.x series. CPAL is also generically in the same category, but its specific requirements are IMO orders of magnitude less burdensome, enough to constitute a difference in kind. (What's the difference between 'specified reasonable legal notices or author attributions in that material' and required, immutable runtime display of trademarked logos and advertising on every user interface screen of the program and all derivatives? Degree, I suspect. If reality is messy and lacks sharp distinctions sometimes, so be it.) I know Clark was also talking about a 'registry of OSS works and dependencies with pretty logos, license terms, and others', and encouraging crediting such works in public deployments, which sounds useful, I guess, but I'm not enthusiastic about 'an emergent consensus on acceptable attribution practices for those who might otherwise wish to not play along', as it is highly prone to abuse, and I doubt any such 'emergent consensus' is likely. And, really, how about we call runtime advertising by its real name, and cease this subterfuge of mislabeling it as 'attribution'? _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss