Subject: Re: [Fwd: FW: For Approval: Generic Attribution Provision]
From: Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:22:14 -0800

Quoting John Cowan (cowan@ccil.org):

> The OSI Definitions don't merely contemplate certain types of software
> reuse, but *every* type of software reuse.

Which brings me to a point I'm pretty sure nobody has yet mentioned:
Given an aspiring open source licence with a "Generic Attribution"
(i.e., mandated graphical advertising) provision, what happens when
Joe/Jane Coder uses some substantive covered code from Codebase A, plus
some from Codebase B?  Does his/her derivative work need to sport _two_
advertising logos in the bottom-left corner?  With addition of
borrowings from Codebases C, D, and E, Joe/Jane would seem to have
accumulated a big enough crowd of logos for them to form a basketball
team, nicht wahr?

That doesn't seem a lot like open source to me, substantively.

-- 
Cheers,           A mosquito cried out in pain:       The cause of his sorrow
Rick Moen         "A chemist has poisoned my brain!"  Was para-dichloro
rick@linuxmafia.com                                   Diphenyltrichloroethane.