> Therefore should say on all interface screens > "Foo, a project by Google" or, if a fork: "Bar, a
> fork of the Google project Foo" with a link back > to its github repo. This requirement is just too asymmetric. What about credit to the database glue you use? What about the language? What about the other free software library you use? I believe it is unfair to shuffle those projects under the carpet even if they don't have such a requirement. Your license should be designed such that you'd be very happy if everyone used the provision you propose, and in particular, that your work would comply with respect to others' work. I do think that there's room for an otherwise permissive license to require reasonable acknowledgement in a manner compatible with GPLv3. It would require that any derived work with an interactive interface have a prominent way to display copyrights & other legal notices. Then, it'd require that your software project be mentioned in those notices, in a manner commensurate with other components of the whole work. There are two parts to this. First is community acceptance: finding wording that is reasonably clear, effective, yet short enough to satisfy those who are interested in a "permissive" license isn't an easy task. Second, and perhaps more importantly, compliance must be quite trivial -- this requires somesort of registry with just about every commonly used open source work included, as well as a convenient mechanism to use this registry to build a compliant legal notice and acknowledgement visual display. So, the outcome of this would be some sort of visual menu that can be easily accessed, where your work would be one of dozens. I do hope to engage in a project like this when I have some time and can find collaborators who agree on an sensible vision. Best, Clark
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss