Subject: Re: [Fwd: FW: For Approval: Generic Attribution Provision]
From: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 01:29:30 -0500

Brian Behlendorf scripsit:

> I think the fundamental question for this list is whether badgeware is 
> copacetic to Open Source.  My intuition is that giving credit to authors 
> is cheap for the value it provides, even if we're talking about screen 
> real estate or headers added to network protocols, and if it ever gets 
> expensive or unreasonable then that'll natually lead people to seek and 
> develop alternatives.  The idea of badgeware doesn't appear to be 
> opposed to forking or other essential freedoms.  So long as the author 
> of a derivative work has the right to add their own badge in some way, 
> and so long as badges don't have to be propagated to aggregate works 
> (e.g., Fedora doesn't have to add a SugarCRM logo to the whole Fedora 
> package collection just because a SugarCRM RPM is contained within), it 
> seems like a fair balance.  But it is a departure from what's accepted 
> today, and I like the drive towards a generic provision that could be 
> added to any license.

The trouble is that if you pull a chunk of code (more than a snippet,
less than the whole thing) out of a badgeware GUI/web program and
incorporate it into a program that doesn't have a graphical UI,
what then?  I find a nifty implementation of some algorithm or
other, I add it to my command-line program, how and where do I
display the badge?

-- 
John Cowan   <cowan@ccil.org>   http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
One time I called in to the central system and started working on a big
thick 'sed' and 'awk' heavy duty data bashing script.  One of the geologists
came by, looked over my shoulder and said 'Oh, that happens to me too.
Try hanging up and phoning in again.'  --Beverly Erlebacher