ZDNet article - why attribution matters

[Rick Moen]

Quoting John-Sugar (john@...):

> Open source for us is a descriptor that says the source code is
> provided, is extensible, redistributable, no restrictions of use and
> is patent free, etc.                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Is it OK to sell SPL 1.3-covered code and derivatives?  Your SPL FAQ
(http://www.sugarcrm.com/crm/open-source/public-license-faq.html, item
4) says no.  Which would make it a shareware licence, and contravene
OSD#6.

[Chuck Swiger]

On Nov 28, 2006, at 10:04 AM, John-Sugar wrote:
> Fair points. To my knowledge OSI does not own the trademark for the  
> words
> ‘open source’, only the domain name.

OSI owns a trademark for "OSI Certified Open Source Software".  It's  
discussed in the FAQ.

> If your whole value proposition is that your software is open source,
> I agree it’s not going to get you very far.  The software needs to  
> stand on its own merits.

Certainly true.  There are probably over ten thousand GPL-licensed  
projects at SourceForge; some are of excellent quality, and others  
less so.  Just because a certain piece of software is under an OSI-
approved license does not state anything about the quality of the  
software; however, software which has the source code available is  
more likely to be improved than software which cannot be modified  
except by the original authors.

> Open source for us is a descriptor that says the source code is  
> provided, is extensible,
> redistributable, no restrictions of use and is patent free, etc.

Very good-- that's not far from where the Debian Free Software  
Guidelines started.

However, I suggest that you consider the notion of "no restrictions  
of use" carefully with regard to your own licensing, because the SPL  
Exhibit B contains restrictions on use which prevent the software  
from being used on machines which do not have a pixel-addressable  
display or WWW connectivity.  If someone wants to use some of your  
software on a machine which only has a VT100 display, or a machine  
which is not networked, they cannot honor the requirements of Exhibit B.

Do you understand that your license restricts the use of your  
software, or is this point unclear to you?

> I’ve not met many of the OSI board members. I do know they are all  
> very
> smart, well respected group of individuals. I don’t know how they  
> got their
> positions, and why they were the chosen ones to create laws for  
> everyone
> else.

The OSI board doesn't create laws; that's done by Congress in the US,  
or similar organizations in other countries.

> The website states they have not even had a meeting in over a year -
> http://opensource.org/weblog/. I’m just trying to understand how this
> organization operates and who exactly are the ‘approvers’  
> specifically.

See: http://opensource.org/docs/board.php

[ ... ]
> For us though, I’m just voicing my opinion. Vilify me if you like,  
> Sugar
> Open Source is and will always be an open source licensed code  
> base. This
> will likely be my last post on this issue.

Ah.  Well, I'm not interested in "vilifying you", but I'd really  
prefer that you not claim your license is "open source" without  
fixing the issue above, submitting the new version of your license  
for consideration to the OSI board via this list, and having it be  
approved.  While you may choose not to follow the process, doing so  
means that you are choosing not to work with people who are pretty  
good at evaluating licenses and making sure that those licenses are  
well-drafted, legally consistent, and support the goals of the open  
source community.

Claiming to have "an open source licensed code base" isn't of much  
value if that codebase cannot be used freely.  For example, if  
someone wrote some software, and put it under the BSD license, yet  
only released binaries without ever releasing the source code,  
claiming that the software is under an "open source" license may be  
technically true, but in practice is disingenuous and not especially  
useful.

--
-Chuck

[David RR Webber (XML)]

Chuck,

 

Personally I'm very happy with the way things stand right now.  However - I believe the issue is not that but how to address the behaviour of people who do not embrace the spirit and the intent behind open source and instead use the very openness as a tool to disadvantage those who are playing by the rules.

 

This does get us into some sort of area where we expect this to be self-policing to an extent by the community at large.   The snag is that community to now becoming vastly bigger than the original geek foundation.

 

So often customers are not the ones hanging out in linux chat rooms reading about how despicable their particular supplier is.  Perhaps the way forward is to establish some kind of grading scheme where those with gold ratings can get extra marketing kudos from the fact - compared to competitors who are less than open about what they are doing or not doing to support the community or the code base they are hijacking.

 

Once again though we come back to who manages and maintains that and where?  Perhaps some kind of eBay rating system is in order - where people can post for and against and developers can post a link to their own entry in the rating bank - and you get points for contributions and such to the source base?  Again no metering system is perfect - but perhaps having some formal recognition for those toiling in the cause may help establish them as a perferred source compared to others?  This would certainly reduce the need for the direct attribution system - if there was a place people could point to for kudos and recognition.

 

Ultimately this comes back to the fact that customers see more business benefit in dealing with these players rather than others.

 

DW

"The way to be is to do" - Confucius (551-472 B.C.)

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: ZDNet article - why attribution matters
From: Chuck Swiger <chuck@...>
Date: Tue, November 28, 2006 1:00 pm
To: David RR Webber ((XML)) <david@...>
Cc: lrosen@..., "'David Berlind'" <David.Berlind@...>,
"'John-Sugar'" <john@...>, license-discuss@...

On Nov 28, 2006, at 8:00 AM, David RR Webber ((XML)) wrote:
> I think this cuts to the point of - what is the purpose of open  
> source?

The purpose of OSI Open Source is to make better software available  
to everyone.

While there are lots of ways of writing, publishing, and maintaining  
software, the experience of the BSD community back in the 1970's, and  
later that of the FSF & GNU project starting in the early 80's [1],  
is that by making the source code to software publicly available and  
permitting people to make their own changes to the code and to be  
able to share these changes with everyone else, results in better  
software.

> The person publishing the source has very clear reasons why they  
> are doing that and how they expect people to use that source.

I would agree that people who publish their source code usually have  
clear reasons for doing so; I would disagree that most people writing  
Open Source software place expectations as to how others should use  
the software.  People who place restrictions into the software  
license on how the software may be used generally do not comply with  
the Open Source Definition, and such licenses typically are rejected  
by the OSI board.

> Other people then wish to retroactively bend that into something  
> different - usually without the permission of the author, or  
> perhaps as an unintended or unanticipated action beyond what the  
> author original envisioned!  This generates friction, or sometimes  
> pleasant surprises - but not always!  ; -)
>
> The job of OSI is to mitigate that and provide clear guidelines and  
> boundaries for people to operate in so that they can anticipate and  
> expect reliable and consistent results when they release their open  
> source in a particular way.  This ultimately fosters a healthy and  
> thriving community of practice.

Do you not find that the Open Source Definition provides clear  
guidelines and boundaries?
Is there some part of it which you find unclear?

--
-Chuck

[Matt Asay]

Rick:

I'm doubly interested in this.  I'm an OSI board member, and I work for
Alfresco.  However, because of the latter (or, rather, the former), I have
recused myself from the formal OSI decision.  I do feel obligated, however,
to ensure that the discussion is measured and informed.  Pointing fingers
and saying things that have been "proven" because you agreed with yourself
doesn't help.

As emphatically as you believe that attribution doesn't meet OSD#10, others
(like me) believe that it does.  There is a genuine issue up for debate.
Declaring "victory" one way or the other is premature.

I'd also appreciate it if you didn't paraphrase what I'm saying.  I prefer
my words to your parsing of them.  They somehow don't sound like mine
anymore after they go through the Rick Translation Machine.  I didn't
comment at all on whether derivative works should be graphical.  To be
honest, I hadn't considered that, and your comment has spurred me to think
it through.  I'd like to continue considering your position without the
noise that surrounds it.  Please don't misrepresent my position in the
interim.

> From: Rick Moen <rick@...>
> Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 10:32:28 -0800
> To: <license-discuss@...>
> Subject: Re: ZDNet article - why attribution matters
>
> Quoting David Berlind (David.Berlind@...):
>
>> I prefer to stay out of the debate of whether attribution makes sense
>> or not and if it does, how much is enough.
>
> It is irksome to see interested parties such as Matt Asay and John
> Roberts claim they seek merely to add software authors' attributions to
> open source, when _technology-neutral_ attribution mechanisms (ref:
> OSD#10) have been an integral part of open source since the very
> beginning -- as several posters have already stated.
>
> In (at least) Mr. Asay's case, his Alfresco "logo" clause has proven,
> upon discussion here, to be quite deliberately not technology-neutral.
> That is, I (ironically) tried to make the argument that the quoted,
> slightly vague clause couldn't possibly be _intended_ as requiring that
> all derivative works be graphical, as that's simply not reasonable for a
> licence aspiring to be open source -- and, incredibly, Asay quickly
> followed up by saying (paraphrased) "No, that's pretty much exactly what
> we mean to require."
>
> So, we have people trying to deliberately contravene -- among other
> things -- OSD#10 and then claim that their licences should be considered
> open source anyway because... oh, I dunno:  Because they're nice people
> with families to feed, because Red Hat, Inc. doesn't itself publish a
> guide to recompiling RHEL without trademark encumbrances, because they
> hold careless and convenient misconceptions about "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", because if they aren't accomodated they'll
> invent an OSI-replacement consortium, or some damned thing like that.
>
> And we're supposed to take this seriously because... and here, my
> imagination fails.  Because we're gullible?  Because we're not very
> bright?  I'm open to suggestions, in hopes of extending the narrative in
> some plausible direction.
>
> Or, in the alternative, we could do the totally unimaginative and return
> to examining submitted licences per the Open Source Definition, and
> cease wasting time plowing through rhetorical bullshit.
>
> --
> Cheers,               My grandparents went to a planet with no bilateral
> Rick Moen             symmetry, and all I got was this lousy F-shirt.
> rick@...  

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Matt Asay (mjasay@...):

> Pointing fingers and saying things that have been "proven" because you
> agreed with yourself doesn't help.

I was referring not to any of my _own_ posts, but rather yours of
Monday, November 13.  Specifically, you said "Because this is an
application with a UI, and because users, not the administrators, are
likely going to be the first ones complaining if something goes wrong,
it makes no sense to bury the disclaimer in the text accompanying the
code because the end user will never have the opportunity to see it" and
"I think it's a bad idea to try to read into a license's intentions -
any license.  A law/license should be read on its face."  

For context, this was immediately after I'd tried to give you an out by
suggesting that Alfresco's phrase "logo and vendor disclaimer must be
visible to all users and be located at the very bottom left of each user
interface screen" clearly carried an implied qualifier of "if any
[screen]".  So, per your Nov. 13 post: apparently not.

Or are you saying you meant something else entirely?

> As emphatically as you believe that attribution doesn't meet OSD#10,
> others (like me) believe that it does.

It is surpassingly odd to attribute this viewpoint to me, mere minutes
after I stated the exact opposite.  Again, the essence of OSD#10 is
technological neutrality.  This the old BSD licence is compliant, while
Alfresco's (judging by your posting) is not.

> I'd also appreciate it if you didn't paraphrase what I'm saying.

If you find any inaccuracies, please do point them out, and I'll be
delighted to correct them.  That offer I gladly make, even though I find
your request more than odd coming from someone who just claimed I said
attribution doesn't meet OSD#10.

> I didn't comment at all on whether derivative works should be graphical.  

Note:  Whether the required "user interface screen" is graphical or not
is actually rather beside the point.  Requiring one at all precludes
reuse of the code in, e.g., daemons, which then contravenes OSD#10.

Yes, code from your "application with a UI" might eventually be used in
a derivative work having none.  That's what happens in open source.

(It was Matthew Flaschen who framed the issue as "This requires there be
a GUI!"  Which missed the target a bit.  Apologies for having picked up
his wording, which somewhat obscured the point under discussion.)

[Chuck Swiger]

On Nov 28, 2006, at 11:06 AM, David RR Webber ((XML)) wrote:
> Personally I'm very happy with the way things stand right now.

You are perhaps fortunate to hold such a positive perspective.  Good  
for you.  :-)

> However - I believe the issue is not that but how to address the  
> behaviour of people who do not embrace the spirit and the intent  
> behind open source and instead use the very openness as a tool to  
> disadvantage those who are playing by the rules.

Some systems are designed so that people who try to take advantage of  
those playing by the rules end up losing out rather than gaining by  
their misbehavior; for an example, while the Bittorrent filesharing  
protocol permits people to download without being willing to share  
with others, such leachers are identified by the other servers and  
preference is given to clients which permit downloads over clients  
which do not.

> This does get us into some sort of area where we expect this to be  
> self-policing to an extent by the community at large.   The snag is  
> that community to now becoming vastly bigger than the original geek  
> foundation.

Given the choice between self-policing and policing imposed by people  
not part of the community, I'd prefer the former.

> So often customers are not the ones hanging out in linux chat rooms  
> reading about how despicable their particular supplier is.  Perhaps  
> the way forward is to establish some kind of grading scheme where  
> those with gold ratings can get extra marketing kudos from the fact  
> - compared to competitors who are less than open about what they  
> are doing or not doing to support the community or the code base  
> they are hijacking.

Hmm.  Some sites like SourceForge provide ratings for projects, and  
various magazines like Byte or ZD/PC-mag sometimes review or rate a  
bunch of software like web browsers or operating systems against each  
other via benchmark testing, and people like Netcraft analyze web-
server and -browser popularity, I'm not sure this is quite what you  
were looking for.

Also, to some extent, I'm not sure it is possible to "hijack" an open-
source project short of ("except by"?) violating the terms of the  
license or removing copyright statements...?  If you take a project,  
and make a better version, isn't this accomplishing the goal of open-
source?

--
-Chuck

[Michael Tiemann]

On Tue, 2006-11-28 at 12:06 -0700, David RR Webber (XML) wrote:

> Once again though we come back to who manages and maintains that and
> where?  Perhaps some kind of eBay rating system is in order - where
> people can post for and against and developers can post a link to
> their own entry in the rating bank - and you get points for
> contributions and such to the source base?

Such a ratings system is entirely orthogonal to the one most interesting
to developers which has precisely four values:

0.  Not open source
1.  Not submitted for review -- unknown
2.  Submitted for review -- unknown, but positions being taken
3.  OSI approved

M

[David Woolley]

> Do you not find that the Open Source Definition provides clear  
> guidelines and boundaries?
> Is there some part of it which you find unclear?

Nearly every licence proposed here, unless it is pure vanity, is trying
to find something fuzzy in the boundaries of the OSD and interpreting it
in the licensor's favour.

Almost always this involves imposing effective restrictions on for profit
use, either all for profit use, or all for profit use except by the
licensor.

[Ben Tilly]

On 11/28/06, Michael Tiemann <tiemann@...> wrote:

> On Tue, 2006-11-28 at 12:06 -0700, David RR Webber (XML) wrote:
>
> > Once again though we come back to who manages and maintains that and
> > where?  Perhaps some kind of eBay rating system is in order - where
> > people can post for and against and developers can post a link to
> > their own entry in the rating bank - and you get points for
> > contributions and such to the source base?
>
> Such a ratings system is entirely orthogonal to the one most interesting
> to developers which has precisely four values:
>
> 0.  Not open source
> 1.  Not submitted for review -- unknown
> 2.  Submitted for review -- unknown, but positions being taken
> 3.  OSI approved

You forgot "compatible with the project I'm working on" which has a
much more complex valuation.  For a large part of the community,
however, that boils down to, "GPL compatible."

Cheers,
Ben

[lmajerus]

When in doubt about theory, look for facts.

I would be very interested in hearing about companies that have taken code covered by an attribution license, such as the SPL, and distributed the code in a way that does not financially benefit the subject of the attribution notice. Are there any such companies?

Laura Majerus

[David RR Webber (XML)]

Ben,

Paraphrasing your comment - the real assessment developers need is "will my
managers buy-off on me using this?".  Frankly that is what keeps RedHat in
business - being the safety net insurance that the CFO can write checks to
each month and deflect executive board questions away with.

Therefore what I'm envisioning is a formula that CFOs and CTOs can use to
quickly evaluate open source tools with - because once their legal council
has OKd the license - that's the next place they head - business
factors/justification, and mostly avoidance of bad karma.

A ready recipe here could establish a good practice code for the community -
and lessen the need for artificial devices in the licenses such as 'thou
shalt insert this orange balloon on all appendages that are green with
purple stripes, etc'.

And that is really what we're all about supposedly - fostering the right
environment for better software.  I spend a good deal of my time fighting
such management behaviours as my job as a consultant - and convincing them
that they too have roles and responsibilities - and that you reap as much as
you sow - applies.  Any tools and templates to make this crossing of the
bridge safer and tried and tested for these people - will significantly help
adoption and support, as opposed to rejection and distrust.

DW

-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Tilly [mailto:btilly@...]
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 7:22 PM
To: Michael Tiemann
Cc: David RR Webber (XML); Chuck Swiger; Lawrence E. Rosen; David Berlind;
John-Sugar; license-discuss@...
Subject: Re: ZDNet article - why attribution matters

On 11/28/06, Michael Tiemann <tiemann@...> wrote:

> On Tue, 2006-11-28 at 12:06 -0700, David RR Webber (XML) wrote:
>
> > Once again though we come back to who manages and maintains that and
> > where?  Perhaps some kind of eBay rating system is in order - where
> > people can post for and against and developers can post a link to
> > their own entry in the rating bank - and you get points for
> > contributions and such to the source base?
>
> Such a ratings system is entirely orthogonal to the one most
> interesting to developers which has precisely four values:
>
> 0.  Not open source
> 1.  Not submitted for review -- unknown 2.  Submitted for review --
> unknown, but positions being taken 3.  OSI approved

You forgot "compatible with the project I'm working on" which has a much
more complex valuation.  For a large part of the community, however, that
boils down to, "GPL compatible."

Cheers,
Ben

[Michael Bernstein-2]

On Tue, 2006-11-28 at 21:23 -0500, David RR Webber wrote:
> Paraphrasing your comment - the real assessment developers need is
> "will my managers buy-off on me using this?".  Frankly that is what
> keeps RedHat in business - being the safety net insurance that the CFO
> can write checks to each month and deflect executive board questions
> away with.

You're conflating 'developers' with 'IT staff'.

- Michael Bernstein

[Matt Asay]

Um, yes.  Alfresco has scads of these, especially in Europe.  Both end users
that are happy using Alfresco with the attribution, SIs that are happy to
sell implementation services for it (without our involvement), and OEMs that
are integrating our Community (attribution required) product into theirs.
It may serve as a deterrent to some, but we have thousands of
users/OEMs/resellers on the Community product.

I guess they didn't notice that it's not open source.  They downloaded it,
accessed the source, modified it, forked it, and redistributed it.  If it
smells like open source and tastes like open source...maybe it's open
source?

> From: <lmajerus@...>
> Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 02:09:57 +0000
> To: <license-discuss@...>
> Subject: RE: ZDNet article - why attribution matters
>
> When in doubt about theory, look for facts.
>
> I would be very interested in hearing about companies that have taken code
> covered by an attribution license, such as the SPL, and distributed the code
> in a way that does not financially benefit the subject of the attribution
> notice. Are there any such companies?
>
> Laura Majerus
>
>
>

[John-Sugar]

Here is a good example of a sugar open source derivative/fork that respects
our attribution clause. Click on the demo to see our attribution on the
bottom.
http://www.thelongreach.com/iah_demo.html 

SugarCRM Inc, does not generate any revenue from the Long Reach corporation,
but they have been excellent contributors to the project. It has indeed been
a non-financial win/win relationship.

John



-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Aitken [mailto:andrew@...]
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 10:21 PM
To: Matt Asay
Cc: lmajerus@...; john@...
Subject: Re: ZDNet article - why attribution matters

Laura,

I won't speak for him but as you and I chatted about today I believe John at
Sugar can attest to numerous instances of the exact same thing.

Regards,
 
Andrew Aitken
Managing Partner
Olliance Group
o-650-493-3800 x301
c-650-704-6321
www.olliancegroup.com

Executive Assistant
Kimberly Verity
kverity@...
o-650-493-3800 x206



-------------------------
Original Message:
From: Matt Asay <mjasay@...>
To: lmajerus@..., license-discuss@...
Cc:
Date: Tuesday, November 28 2006 10:12 PM
Subject: Re: ZDNet article - why attribution matters
Um, yes.  Alfresco has scads of these, especially in Europe.  Both end users
that are happy using Alfresco with the attribution, SIs that are happy to
sell implementation services for it (without our involvement), and OEMs that
are integrating our Community (attribution required) product into theirs.
It may serve as a deterrent to some, but we have thousands of
users/OEMs/resellers on the Community product.

I guess they didn't notice that it's not open source.  They downloaded it,
accessed the source, modified it, forked it, and redistributed it.  If it
smells like open source and tastes like open source...maybe it's open
source?


> From: <lmajerus@...>
> Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 02:09:57 +0000
> To: <license-discuss@...>
> Subject: RE: ZDNet article - why attribution matters
>
> When in doubt about theory, look for facts.
>
> I would be very interested in hearing about companies that have taken code
> covered by an attribution license, such as the SPL, and distributed the
code
> in a way that does not financially benefit the subject of the attribution
> notice. Are there any such companies?
>
> Laura Majerus
>
>
>

[Matthew Flaschen]

John-Sugar wrote:

> Here is a link to our license: http://www.sugarcrm.com/crm/SPL 
> It is a combination of two OSI approved licenses:
> http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mozilla1.1.php  plus
> http://www.opensource.org/licenses/attribution.php 

This is not true.  It doesn't use the Attribution Assurance License
(http://www.opensource.org/licenses/attribution.php) but rather the
"Exhibit B", which contains much more specific provisions, such as "the
dimensions of the "Powered By SugarCRM" logo must be at least 106 x 23
pixels." that fly in the face of OSD #10.  A real combo of the AA
requirements and the MPL would be open source, in my opinion, but has
not been approved.

Moreover, you haven't commented about the FAQ, which inexplicably claims
that no one can "Sell any SPL-covered code." This doesn't seem to be
based on anything in the license, and would obviously violate OSD #1,
which says "The license shall not restrict any party from *selling* or
giving away the software."  Again, I think only the FAQ is at fault, but
it definitely raises questions about your understanding of the meaning
of open source.

Matthew Flaschen

>
>
>
>
> David Berlind wrote:
>> John:
>>
>> Thank you for cc:ing your response to license-discuss on ZDNet. In
>> response to what I've so far seen from Michael, Larry, and you, I'd like
>> to add my observations as an objective observer. First, I meant no
>> disrespect to your values, wives, or families, all of whom require
>> serious wage earning at some point.  I have a wife and three children. I
>> totally get it. I hope you understand that I am neutral to the issue of
>> attribution and I'm glad that my post has provoked some discussion here.
>> But I am not neutral to fine print issues that affect users of
>> technology, particularly where the fine print is missing. I  believe in
>> my heart that a failure to disclose the fact that an open source license
>> has so far not yet been approved as such by the defacto consortium to
>> which the open source community currently looks for such approvals,
>> qualifies as fine print that's missing.
>>
>> I prefer to stay out of the debate of whether attribution makes sense or
>> not and if it does, how much is enough. There are people here that are
>> far wiser than I who are obviously prepared to argue the merits of
>> various approaches. So, from my point of view, the line crossed has
>> nothing to do with your selected degree or method of attribution (eg:
>> pointing back to SugarCRM where no advertising exists). The line crossed
>> is the one where one company or organization decides it's OK to rewrite
>> the rules of open source or, in the case of "commercial open source" to
>> declare a new class of open source without seeking any consensus from
>> the open source community itself. One could argue that no consensus is
>> required before a new commercial license is written and that is of
>> course true. However, there isn't a self-policing community of
>> commercial license providers which has established to seek a standard
>> baseline for what it means to be commercial the way there has been for
>> open source.
>>
>> Perhaps a consensus, when and if one is achieved, will yield a result
>> that's favorable to your position on the issue. But even you point out
>> that now that you've done it (modified the MPL), others are doing the
>> same. Clearly, there's no consensus on how the MPL should be modified,
>> or, at the very least, all those who have followed in your footsteps
>> would not have felt the need to write their own modifications to it.
>> They would have picked yours. You're clearly testing the boundaries.
>> That may have not been your intent. But to this independent observer,
>> your choice (and the choices of others) to modify the MPL without
>> following the community's accepted practice for making such changes, and
>> to continue referring to your license as an open source license
>> (commercial or otherwise) has tested the customs of the community. It
>> tests the limits of the clause in the MPL that allows for changes. It
>> tests the OSI's process.  
>>
>> There's an old George Carlin bit where he talks about how, when he's
>> driving on the road, everyone going slower than him is an idiot, and
>> everyone going faster than him is a maniac.
>>
>> There are a lot of open source developers that don't have any mouths to
>> feed but their own and are happy to operate within the norms of the
>> community. And then, there will be people who, based on the precedent
>> you've already set and are defending, will take it upon themselves to
>> cross a line that even you wouldn't dare cross in modifying an existing
>> open source license (while still referring to it as open source). You
>> and others who have already taken matters into their own hands will of
>> course have to remain silent. Pot, kettle, black. Think it won't happen?
>> Trust me. There are people who didn't think what you've done could have
>> happened. One day, "open source" will simply be meaningless or may even
>> carry negative connotations (it's possible that "free software" could
>> survive such a debacle, perhaps become stronger because of it).
>>
>> Why do I say any of this? Here's where I hope it becomes clear that none
>> of what I just said is meant as a put down to you, Ross, Glenn, Scott or
>> the others. The net result for SugarCRM and others who believe that
>> associations with "open source" are positive associations for their
>> brands will one day find that they are associated with something that
>> means absolutely nothing. Or worse, something negative.
>>
>> You must ask yourselves if that's what you really want.
>>
>> db
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Michael Tiemann [mailto:tiemann@...]
>> Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 10:08 PM
>> To: Lawrence E. Rosen
>> Cc: 'John-Sugar'; license-discuss@...; David Berlind
>> Subject: RE: ZDNet article - why attribution matters
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>