Subject: Delite me from your malinglist.
From: Christian Maletz <christian_maletz@yahoo.de>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 22:25:38 +0100

Matthew Flaschen schrieb:
> Ross Mayfield wrote:
>   
>> Socialtext has been monitoring the conversation and we appreciate your
>> input.  Based on our review of the discussion, it appears that beyond
>> the general concerns about attribution, the proposed provision raises
>> two issues for the group:
>>
>> 1)  What happens if the product does not have a UI?
>>     
>
> Yes, this is a serious problem.  More generally, what happens if the
> constraints of the original attribution (e.g. "same size" logo) can't be
> applied to a new UI.  What does "same size" even mean?  Does it refer to
> number of pixels, width at a certain resolution, the length of an SVG
> path, or what?  If it's physical size of the image, what if that exceeds
> the size of the whole UI? The AAL allowed much more discretion about the
> format of the attribution (and besides was approved before OSD #10).
>
>   
>> 2)  What happens if the location requirement is too specific?
>>     
>
> Yes, and what happens if two attribution licenses conflict or make
> extended derivative works difficult (OSD #3)?  For example, if two GAP
> provisions require different logos in the same place, what happens?
> Even if they're different places, what happens if one logo has to be so
> big that it would cover the other?
>
> More generally, what happens if you use so many GAP packages that the
> screen becomes full of logos?  This seems a possible and quite
> troublesome consequence of the provision.  It could ultimately make the
> software unusable.  The original BSD advertising clause was already
> considered troublesome, and it didn't require the program display anything.
>
>   
>> We think that we can come up with acceptable answers to both of these
>> concerns, but we wanted to make sure that we have addressed all of the
>> major concerns.
>>     
>
> See
> http://www.buni.org/mediawiki/index.php/GAP_Against#Compliance_with_OSD_.233
>
>
> One major issue is still the question of it being a Generic Attribution
> *Provision*.  As noted, the approval process
> (http://opensource.org/docs/certification_mark.php#approval) requires
> the submission of a *license*, which you have not done.  Do you intend
> the board to consider the combination of GAP and all 50-something
> licenses,  just the ones that explicitly allow modifications to the
> license text (to avoid the question of what is aggregation and what is
> modification), or really just MPL?
>
> There's also the question of GAP's grammatical correctness, or lack
> thereof (e.g. "[...]ensure that each time the resulting executable
> program, a display of the same size as found in the [original
> code][...]").  It should be reformulated, explicitly noting what must be
> done and when using standard English.
>
> Matthew Flaschen
>
>   




	
		
___________________________________________________________ 
Der frühe Vogel fängt den Wurm. Hier gelangen Sie zum neuen Yahoo! Mail: http://mail.yahoo.de