Re: [Fwd: FW: For Approval: Generic Attribution Provision]

Great - I'm glad we're all having a real discussion based on merit of an attribution clause.  Kudos again to Ross for putting something up for real discussion.

clause, which have already been articulated here, I would offer a
hearty "amen" to the arguments made earlier.  Simply, I agree that a
splash-screen attribution requirement would not be onerous, and it
would echo certain splash-screen language that has already been
included in other, OSI-approved licenses.

Yes.  It seems to be in line with previous OSI licenses and in line with what many "attribution license" companies do for THEIR attribution currently (ref: Sugar "About" page).

Here is the original proposal (from Socialtext) with my proposed edits
in [BRACKETED CAPS]:

"Redistributions of the [original code] in binary form or source code
form, must ensure that each time the resulting executable program
[RUNS], a display of the same size as found in the [original code]
released by the original licensor (e.g., splash screen or banner text)
of the original licensor's attribution information, which includes:

(a) Company Name
(b) Logo (if any) and
(c) URL

[MUST APPEAR FOR ENOUGH TIME AS TO BE LEGIBLE]."

Seems consistent with "giving credit where credit is due."  I'm cool with the legibility edit. 

I think that sorts out the size/placement which leads me to one suggestion:  One of the issues I had with the original wording (included in your edits) was leaving the requirement of placement/size as determined by original code:
"... a display of the same size as found in the original code released by the original licensor ..."
I believe the wording (yours/mine/ross/whomever) has to LIMIT the nature of the attribution and not leave it up to the original licensor.  Otherwise, we're back where we started (badgeware on every UI) screen.  If OSI is going to approve, generally for ubiquitous use, an attribution rider should limit to appropriate attribution places (IMHO).  Notice that my definition of "appropriate" was inferred, in part, from what people using Attribution Licenses do currently for other copyright holders (docs/about/etc).

How does this sound?  I also agree with Nicholas Goodman's suggested
additional language addressing trademark rights, in his post from
11/29.

The last thing that I would reiterate from my original "compromise" attribution rider is the language about "if such a splash screen or about page is present in redistribution".  I think that OSD #10 requires that no particular technology be present (ie, can't require a GUI and be OSD compliant).  This language allows it to meet #10 because attribution on Splash/About page is not a requirement if there isn't an About or Splash page present (non GUI circumstances).

Nick