Subject: Re: For Approval: Common Public Attribution License (CPAL)
From: Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 16:15:34 -0700

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

> Finally, these licenses don't define prominent as "of sufficient
> duration to give reasonable notice to the user of the identity of the
> Original Developer and (b) if You include Attribution Notice or
> similar information for other parties, You must ensure that the
> Attribution Notice for the Original Developer shall be no less
> prominent than such Attribution Notice or similar information for the
> other party."
> 
> This definition is subjective (doesn't "sufficient duration" depend on
> vision, age, attention, etc.) and at the least, could eventually
> result in a profusion of attribution, slowing the splash screen into a
> slideshow.  This is an OSD #3 problem, since it constrains practical
> modification.

Non-sequitur conclusion, sir.

Like it or not, criteria requiring reasonable judgements in the applicable
contexts are an inherent part of law and even of (gasp!) software
engineering at times.  If "sufficient duration to give reasonable notice
to the user of the identity of the Original Developer" bothers you,
then you're going to _really_ hate the concept of "derivative work" in
copyright law, for example.

-- 
Haiku are "IP";                       Permission's hereby
Keen Unixes are, too.  GNU            Granted to deal in this poem
Is better, and free.                  Without restriction.
                           -- Seth David Schoen