Subject: Re: [Fwd: FW: For Approval: Generic Attribution Provision]
From: Rod Dixon <roddixon@cyberspaces.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 21:07:36 -0500
Wed, 13 Dec 2006 21:07:36 -0500
I would add OSD#3 and #4 as well.  Mandatory badgeware seems per se  
contrary to the spirit and letter of the OSD. Aside from the open  
source matter, if a badgeware proponent carefully reads some of the  
thoughtful comments posted on this list, it should become apparent  
that some forms of badgeware use do not well-serve the holder of the  
trademark anyway (that is, if the badgeware is an appropriate  
trademark).  There must be numerous ways to implement a less imposing  
signal of attribution than a mandatory badgeware restriction dressed  
up as a trademark license tucked inside a software copyright license.

Rod Dixon

On Dec 13, 2006, at 4:33 PM, Matthew Flaschen wrote:

> Brian Behlendorf wrote:
>> I consider that unfortunate,
>> personally, but am willing to swallow my idealism - that allowing
>> badgeware to carry the label "Open Source" might be better for the  
>> world
>> than creating a big schism, and consuming passion and energy on a
>> distinction that doesn't really affect fundamental freedoms we value
>> about Open Source.
>>
>>     Brian
>
> It does affect fundamental freedoms, though.  For example, interfaces
> could easily become burdensome if multiple types of badgeware are
> developed.  Worse, one statement has implied that multiple forms of
> badgeware could not be combined at all:
>
> Ross Mayfield wrote:
>
>> Yet, by their nature, licenses with
>> attribution will only permit the original licensor to include its  
>> logo
>> since the license cannot be amended by sublicensors.
>
>
> Finally, there remains the objection on OSD #10 grounds.  It is not
> acceptable to limit open source code to GUI programs.
>
> Matthew Flaschen
>



I would add OSD#3 and #4 as well.  Mandatory badgeware seems per se contrary to the spirit and letter of the OSD. Aside from the open source matter, if a badgeware proponent carefully reads some of the thoughtful comments posted on this list, it should become apparent that some forms of badgeware use do not well-serve the holder of the trademark anyway (that is, if the badgeware is an appropriate trademark).  There must be numerous ways to implement a less imposing signal of attribution than a mandatory badgeware restriction dressed up as a trademark license tucked inside a software copyright license.

Rod Dixon

On Dec 13, 2006, at 4:33 PM, Matthew Flaschen wrote:

Brian Behlendorf wrote:
I consider that unfortunate,
personally, but am willing to swallow my idealism - that allowing
badgeware to carry the label "Open Source" might be better for the world
than creating a big schism, and consuming passion and energy on a
distinction that doesn't really affect fundamental freedoms we value
about Open Source.

    Brian

It does affect fundamental freedoms, though.  For example, interfaces
could easily become burdensome if multiple types of badgeware are
developed.  Worse, one statement has implied that multiple forms of
badgeware could not be combined at all:

Ross Mayfield wrote:

Yet, by their nature, licenses with
attribution will only permit the original licensor to include its logo
since the license cannot be amended by sublicensors.


Finally, there remains the objection on OSD #10 grounds.  It is not
acceptable to limit open source code to GUI programs.

Matthew Flaschen