Subject: Re: [Fwd: FW: For Approval: Generic Attribution Provision]
From: Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 02:35:19 -0800

Quoting Matthew Flaschen (matthew.flaschen@gatech.edu):
> Rick Moen wrote:
> 
> > 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?
> 
> This objection been mentioned, and the closest thing to a rebuttal was:
> 
> 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.

It's not clear to me that such is _necessarily_ true of all
"attribution" [sic] (i.e., mandatory displayed advertising) licences.
However:

> This would seem to ban combining multiple badgeware programs.

In that case, _those_ licences would, I would say, substantively
contravene OSD#3, Derived Works.

Quoting an offlist side-discussion I was recently in:   Code reuse,
albeit somewhat rarer than often believed, is an important enough core
notion of open source to be referred to (though without specific mention
of _multiple_ codebases) in OSD#3.  Like forking, it's (IMVAO) an
important reserve power, regardless of how often used in practice.

-- 
Cheers,                   I have yet to see any problem, however complicated, 
Rick Moen                 which, when you looked at it in the right way, did 
rick@linuxmafia.com       not become still more complicated. -- Poul Anderson