Subject: Re: [Fwd: FW: For Approval: Generic Attribution Provision]
From: Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 13:12:47 -0800

Quoting Matthew Flaschen (matthew.flaschen@gatech.edu):

> I think someone *may* have said two licenses that both require logos at
> the *very top left* (for example) are incompatible because of course
> only one can actually be in the exact top left.

I saw one cited where the logo was supposed to be in the exact centre, a
specified distance from the bottom.

> > That BSD clause's encumbrance was not on what the code may and may not
> > (or must and must not) contain or become -- but rather on advertising
> > about the codebase: its features, and its usage.
> 
> Apache License 1.1 (which is approved) has a quite similar clause:
> 
>  "3. The end-user documentation included with the redistribution, if
> any, must include the following acknowledgment:
> 
>     "This product includes software developed by the Apache Software
> Foundation (http://www.apache.org/)."
> 
> Alternately, this acknowledgment may appear in the software itself, if
> and wherever such third-party acknowledgments normally appear."

Yes.  Please note that in neither case does this does not substantially
interfere with the OSD-detailed ability to use the software for any
purpose.  My earlier point was that, through accumulation of mandated
logos in consequence of code reuse, a badgeware provision may tend over
time to substantively interfere in exactly the way that old-BSD and APL
1.1 doesn't.  ;->

-- 
Cheers,                   Now, it's time to hack the real world, and let other
Rick Moen                 people write Web sites about it.
rick@linuxmafia.com                                   -- Donald B. Marti