Subject: Re: [Fwd: FW: For Approval: Generic Attribution Provision]
From: "Ross Mayfield" <ross.mayfield@socialtext.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 14:30:15 -0800

I think limiting the attribution affordance for licensors will bring
us back where we started (or are today, a day when yet another open
source company launched with MPL + attribution), and a license that is
designing what is "appropriate" is designing software, if not choosing
technology.

Is striking the example language, "(e.g., splash screen or banner
text)" a considerable compromise?

Ross

On 12/4/06, Nicholas Goodman <ngoodman@bayontechnologies.com> wrote:
>
>  Great - I'm glad we're all having a real discussion based on merit of an
> attribution clause.  Kudos again to Ross for putting something up for real
> discussion.
>  clause, which have already been articulated here, I would offer a
> hearty "amen" to the arguments made earlier. Simply, I agree that a
> splash-screen attribution requirement would not be onerous, and it
> would echo certain splash-screen language that has already been
> included in other, OSI-approved licenses.
>
>  Yes.  It seems to be in line with previous OSI licenses and in line with
> what many "attribution license" companies do for THEIR attribution currently
> (ref: Sugar "About" page).
>  Here is the original proposal (from Socialtext) with my proposed edits
> in [BRACKETED CAPS]:
>
> "Redistributions of the [original code] in binary form or source code
> form, must ensure that each time the resulting executable program
> [RUNS], a display of the same size as found in the [original code]
> released by the original licensor (e.g., splash screen or banner text)
> of the original licensor's attribution information, which includes:
>
> (a) Company Name
> (b) Logo (if any) and
> (c) URL
>
> [MUST APPEAR FOR ENOUGH TIME AS TO BE LEGIBLE]."
>
>  Seems consistent with "giving credit where credit is due."  I'm cool with
> the legibility edit.
>
>  I think that sorts out the size/placement which leads me to one suggestion:
>  One of the issues I had with the original wording (included in your edits)
> was leaving the requirement of placement/size as determined by original
> code:
>  "... a display of the same size as found in the original code released by
> the original licensor ..."
>  I believe the wording (yours/mine/ross/whomever) has to LIMIT the nature of
> the attribution and not leave it up to the original licensor.  Otherwise,
> we're back where we started (badgeware on every UI) screen.  If OSI is going
> to approve, generally for ubiquitous use, an attribution rider should limit
> to appropriate attribution places (IMHO).  Notice that my definition of
> "appropriate" was inferred, in part, from what people using Attribution
> Licenses do currently for other copyright holders (docs/about/etc).
>  How does this sound? I also agree with Nicholas Goodman's suggested
> additional language addressing trademark rights, in his post from
> 11/29.
>
>  The last thing that I would reiterate from my original "compromise"
> attribution rider is the language about "if such a splash screen or about
> page is present in redistribution".  I think that OSD #10 requires that no
> particular technology be present (ie, can't require a GUI and be OSD
> compliant).  This language allows it to meet #10 because attribution on
> Splash/About page is not a requirement if there isn't an About or Splash
> page present (non GUI circumstances).
>
>  Nick


-- 
--
Ross Mayfield
CEO
Socialtext, Inc.
ross.mayfield@socialtext.com
aim:rossdmayfield
skype:rossmayfield
t. +1-650-323-0800
f. +1-650-323-0801
company: http://www.socialtext.com
weblog: http://ross.typepad.com
many-to-many: http://www.corante.com/many
this email is: [ ] bloggable [ x ] ask first [ ] private