RE: ZDNet article - why attribution matters

Michael,
There are multiple ways of protecting attribution. We use a text based language PHP, that does not need to be compiled. If we did use a language that required a compiler it would be much, much easier for us to embed our attribution marks in, say a Linux distribution and make it virtually impossible for anyone to compile the source with the attribution marks removed.

Just another example of a way to be technically OSI approved, but still protect your attribution marks. What happens if you remove all the redhat marks and compile the source? RHEL makes that super simple right? No compile issues? Any average developer should be able to do this right? Can you point me to an URL and instructions on how to do this?

Another way is to add external service agreements that surround GPL code that place extended limitations on the use of GPL code within enterprises that buy commercial linux subscription contracts? If this is true, it doesn't seem very open source to me. Even though it's 'OSI approved'.

OSI is an organization that I believe tries very hard to represent the interests of both developers and users. I really do not like the idea of a small group of folks (I'm curious to understand how board members are chosen, elected, etc.) trying to create laws for the rest of the world. Open Source to me is about freedom. It's about letting the collective wisdom of crowds choose the licenses as they, the users see fit. Let the best licenses win.

I am not trying to stir things up too much here. I'm a huge believer in what we are all trying to accomplish collectively. I've purposely stayed away from this discussion because it felt more like punditry then action. And most importantly, the acknowledgement that open source is growing, but it is also changing. I hope OSI does not get stuck in the past or it could, and I think will be superseded by a new open source organization that more people both developers and users feel represent their real interests and values.

Attribution is here to stay. If you refuse to acknowledge it, you are trying to stop change, which will be very hard to do I believe.

John

Michael Tiemann wrote:

On Mon, 2006-11-27 at 18:50 -0800, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> The issue isn't just "Why attribution matters," because it obviously does.
> Attribution is already mentioned in lots of FOSS licenses. Attribution is
> important to every author, not just commercial ones who work for a living
> (although most do!). Notice of authorship is so important that the US
> Copyright Act even makes the fraudulent removal of a copyright notice a
> criminal offense. 17 USC 506(d).
>
> We should instead be asking: How much attribution is enough? How much
> attribution can be demanded in an open source license?

This conflates two very important questions.

> I don't believe anyone has argued yet that Sugar's license crosses the line.
> Most of us simply aren't sure where the line should be drawn. You can
> legally require in a software license that licensees put neon signs on the
> highway to announce your copyrighted work, but is that open source?

First: is it attribution?  The Creative Commons folks seem to agree that
attribution "in the manner specified by the author" is not a blank
check, and they say so in the code (but not the deed) of the license.  A
requirement for neon in attribution is not, strictly speaking, needed to
satisfy the legal requirements of legal attribution.

Second: is it open source?  Just as a lawyer cannot say for sure what
the law says until a judge renders a verdict (and even then a successor
judge can render a different judgment), the only way to know for sure
that something satisfies the Open Source Definition is to put the
license before the OSI approval process and see if it is approved by the
process.

M