Subject: Re: [Fwd: FW: For Approval: Generic Attribution Provision]
From: "Ben Tilly" <btilly@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 20:33:13 -0800

On 1/20/07, Matthew Flaschen <matthew.flaschen@gatech.edu> wrote:
> Ben Tilly wrote:
> > You still haven't touched on an area of disagreement.
> >
> > The disagreement lies with the point that you haven't yet addressed.
> > Which is whether they've gone so far doing this that they are
> > violating OSD #6.  In my opinion, they have not.  In my further
> > opinion, the Attribution Assurance License raises the exact potential
> > same OSD #6 issues, and the Board decided to allow it.  (Note that OSD
> > #6 was in the definition when they made that decision.)  I suspect
> > they allowed it for the same reason that I would.
>
> Not quite.  AAL doesn't allow an arbitrary logo, but only three
> well-defined text phrases.

You're referring to your argument of a logo that cannot be used by
certain groups because it is offensive for them?

First I note that Rick Moen has not made that argument.  Secondly I
note that none of the multitude of examples in front of us has made an
offensive logo of that form.  I'm therefore inclined to disregard that
hypothetical.

(Why do people care about this so much?  We all agree that under OSD
#10 this is a slam dunk.  Why worry about a far weaker OSD #6
argument?)

Cheers,
Ben