I am looking for a BSD/MIT style license with a clause requiring
attribution.
E.g.: This project was created by Google 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 from Foo back to its github repo.
Can you
BIRGUL KARAMIZRAK scripsit:
Distribution
Distribution of the original or the copy of the source code by natural or
legal persons that accept this license is subject to the approval of the
copyright holder. (manufacturer)
This license is not an Open Source license, because it contravenes
On Monday 17. December 2012 02.14, ldr ldr wrote:
Can you recommend such a license?
There is the BSD 2-Clause License.
It says in part in the first paragraph «... provided that the following
conditions are met:»
Then add your special attribution requirements as part of the license
conditions.
ldr ldr stackoverflowuse...@gmail.com writes:
E.g.: This project was created by Google 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 from Foo back to its
github repo.
I'm not sure a license that has such
Quoting Johnny Solbu (joh...@solbu.net):
You can also look at the various «Creative Commons» licenses. If I'm
not mistaken, all of them require attribution.
They require keeping copyright notices intact and provide the name of
the original author, etc., which credit may be 'implemented in any
BIRGUL KARAMIZRAK wrote:
Signing of the Contract
The license will take effect upon signing personally by the license provider
and the licensee. The signature owner is required to be authorized to sign on
behalf of the legal person.
This conflicts with the use of the term public in the
Thanks, I've seen it in a few open-source projects, such as:
http://www.nopcommerce.com/licensev3.aspx
http://www.mvcforum.com/license
But this isn't well received by the open-source community, and would not be
OSI approved?
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 8:02 AM, Rick Moen r...@linuxmafia.com wrote:
Quoting ldr ldr (stackoverflowuse...@gmail.com):
Thanks, I've seen it in a few open-source projects, such as:
http://www.nopcommerce.com/licensev3.aspx
http://www.mvcforum.com/license
Those are not open source. Moreover:
But this isn't well received by the open-source community, and
Quoting John Cowan (co...@mercury.ccil.org):
It all hangs on the word reasonable in the definition of permitted
restrictions of type 7b: Requiring preservation of specified
reasonable legal notices or author attributions in that material or in
the Appropriate Legal Notices displayed by works
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 08:58:16PM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
As you have noticed, some firms have now adopted the clever if sleazy
-- my interpretation -- ploy of purporting to use GPLv3 but sliding a
mandatory badgeware notice requirement for every single UI page by
claiming those are
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 09:17:11PM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
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
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 12:34:33AM -0500, Richard Fontana wrote:
I believe that the OSI's approval of CPAL (the license you may be
intentionally not naming) was, in retrospect, wrongly decided.
To be fair, and to spread the blame around, the FSF's decision that
CPAL is a free software license
12 matches
Mail list logo
