Subject: RE: OSL 3.0 section 6 ["Attribution Rights"]
From: "Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 17:04:34 -0700

> Do you anticipate getting similar criticism of this clause, 
> either from the OSI board in approving the license, or from 
> f/oss partisans in general?

I eagerly anticipate getting whatever input anyone wants to provide. That's
in the nature of an open procedure to achieve some form of consensus on an
open source license.

No, I don't believe this is the same thing as the BSD advertising clause. It
only requires placing notices on copies of the Original Work or Derivative
Works -- not in advertising.

/Larry 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joel West [mailto:svosrp@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Friday, August 12, 2005 4:46 PM
> To: lrosen@rosenlaw.com; license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: OSL 3.0 section 6 ["Attribution Rights"]
> 
> Larry,
> 
> While I certainly understand why this sort of clause is 
> essential for some firms, isn't this the same sort of issue 
> as the much-hated (now defunct) BSD advertising clause? On 
> page 82 you say "such advertising demands are no longer 
> acceptable..." (quote taken out of context)
> 
> Do you anticipate getting similar criticism of this clause, 
> either from the OSI board in approving the license, or from 
> f/oss partisans in general?
> 
> Joel
> 
> 
> On 11:01 AM -0700 8/11/05, Lawrence Rosen doth scribe:
> >This condition regarding attribution is important to some. 
> Consider the 
> >SugarCRM license at 
> >http://www.sugarcrm.com/crm/open-source/public-license.html which 
> >imposes the "Additional Terms" at Exhibit B. (That license 
> has not yet 
> >been formally approved by OSI, by the way.)
> 
> ...
> 
> >The proposed new sentence in OSL
> >3.0 deals more broadly with copyright, patent and trademark 
> notices in 
> >whatever form the work is distributed. It requires that the original 
> >authors' notices remain visible whenever a new distributor's notices 
> >are displayed. The proposed new sentence reads as follows:
> >
> >   Unless You obtain a separate license or a waiver of this sentence
> >   from the Licensor, (i) You must display Licensor's copyright and
> >   patent notices on copies of the Original Work and Derivative Works
> >   that You distribute, in the same places and with the same 
> prominence
> >   as You display Your own copyright and patent notices, and 
> (ii) You must
> >   display a statement to the effect that "Your work is a 
> Derivative Work
> >   of Licensor's Original Work licensed under the Open 
> Software License
> >   version 3.0" in copies of Derivative Works that You 
> distribute, in the
> >   same places and with the same prominence as You display Your own
> >   trademarks.
> >
> >Strictly speaking, this new sentence does not actually require any 
> >author or distributor to display copyright, patent or 
> trademark notices 
> >anywhere in particular. (Remember, though, that the first 
> two sentences 
> >of Section 6 already require certain notices in the Source 
> Code!) But 
> >with this new sentence, if a downstream distributor elects 
> to display 
> >its own copyright, patent and trademark notices on splash screens or 
> >"Help About" messages, for example, it must provide 
> equivalent notices of the original authors as well.