Why I'm tired of "The Attribution Debate"

Matt, This is absolute bunk and you know it. These GUI interface required licenses violate OSD #10 quite clearly and you are VERY aware of it. These adware licenses are very different from the present BSDish attribution licenses approved by OSD. Microsoft Windows has many successful distributions of its product as well...this has nothing to do with the issue.

Actually, Andy, I really do not know it. Nor does the OSI know it. In fact, there's still a lot of discussion and disagreement on it, but I personally don't buy the argument based on #10.

Here's #10, which you cite:No provision of the license may be predicated on any individual technology or style of interface.I assume that you cite this to say that if a license requires a graphic, it can't be used in headless environments, or mobile screens, or whatever. I don't buy this. It may mean that the licenses, as written, need to allow for other forms of attribution (not sure what it would be in a headless environment - perhaps it reverts to header files with attribution?), but it does not mean that attribution, itself, is not OSD-compliant. This is just a matter of editing these licenses, not throwing them out.

Again, I do not like attribution. I think the GPL is much more effective as a business tool, and as a developer tool. But my dislike of the licensing mechanism doesn't lead me to the conclusion that it's wrong.

Nice post Matt. This comment by "Andy". Typical developer with his head in the sand. Every time. Wrong. It's like a sickness or something. All rhetoric. No fact. No logic. Just pure Internet-enabled bloviation by the ill-informed, sophomoric, GPL worshiping malcontents which seem to travel like schools of sardines in the sea - blindly mirroring every move of their FSF worshiping peers. Andy - a piece of advice. You're out of your league taking on Matt on this subject.

Come on Matt, you sound like Tony Snow trying to explain the latest Bush administration hair splitting.

Requiring that a logo of a certain size be displayed in a particular location on every user interface page, that the logo be clickable and take the user to the web site of the creating company is way beyond attribution - it's adware.

It's ridiculous that two pieces of source code cannot be used together because "attribution" requirements conflict (e.g. Mule, SugarCRM and Socialtext). Simple test: if a license's "attribution" requirement can conflict with another license's "attribution" requirement, those are not attribution requirements - they're adware requirements.

Most know that Alfresco has a similar provision in its license (you guys put the logo on the left, Mule puts their's in the center) and that you're just sticking up for your company. However, it'd be a bit more honest if you'd mention that in the blog entry.

I don't mind attribution, as long as it stays within rational bounds, and does not make my life much harder as a developer/user/distributor.

Unfortunately, demanding that people always show some graphics of specific size, at specific locations, automatically limits the fields of endeavor the code can be used in. It's really hard to display such a logo on a braille display, for example, and that makes software using such licenses unsuitable for scenarios where the user needs to comply with accessibility regulations.

Same holds for usage in the mobile web, where the exact specifications on the logo sizes are larger than many mobile phone screens, leaving no room for the actual application on them.

These are two simple scenarios where the way the Mule license violates OSD #10 leads to a violation of #5 & #6.

Doesn't this violate OSD#9 too?

"The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software.

Rationale: Distributors of open-source software have the right to make their own choices about their own software."

So it seems while one can demand attribution, it is up to the distributor to make the choice on how it is given.

Quoted material from http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php

Here's the problem. Imagine if each contributor to a project either added his/her attribution requirement or merged code from another project that had an attribution requirement. Pretty soon you'll have more attribution adware than content and the whole thing will be useless.

You might think "that can't happen", but if attribution adware becomes the common, it will and because open source projects have thousands of contributors it can easily get out of hand because "It's not fair if someone else can do it but not me".

That's the basic reason why such software is shunned -- it's bad for the open source ecosystem.

Zealots, in any area of life--religion, politics, and especially open source software--should be avoided at all costs. These narrow minding people should mind their own business, and let others alone. --dB

Seriously, let's move on. We have real work to do. I would prefer to
be doing mine under the GPL, and so would many of you (or BSD, or
whatever). But that doesn't mean we can't grudgingly welcome a
different, OSD-compliant (in my view) manner of open source licensing
the fold. Or welcome back, if you will, given that attribution and the
MPL are settled "approved" licensing mechanisms in the OSI license
>
>
Seriously, Get A Clue. "Attribution" is nothing but a back-door attempt by the Windows Share/Crippleware crowd (which you are most likely a part of) to infiltrate the Linux/BSD base with the Adware Garabage they couldn't slip through the front door. You're either a total moron or complete liar if you try to state that this isn't the case.

The real goal of adware is to encourage users to buy a proprietary license. As Dave wrote a couple of months ago: "You make a deal with us for a commercial license and then you do whatever you want."

http://weblog.infoworld.com/openresource/archives/2006/11/licensing_in_lo.html

That may well be the goal of some companies. I can't say. But, if so, it's no different from MySQL, Sleepycat, and others who sell a commercial license when the buyer (and most buyers fit this mold) don't actually want GPL/BSD/whatever-licensed software.

Regardless, the OSD isn't concerned with intentions. It's concerned with pragmatics. What does attribution actually do to redistribution. I, personally, can point to tens of thousands of attribution-burdened implementations. You?

I, personally, can point to tens of thousands of attribution-burdened implementations.

All attribution is not the same.

I have no problem with an interactive program needing to have a "Credits" section where a company whose code was used is given credit for that. That's reasonable. That section can even include logos and links. But mandating that attribution be in a specific location and on every page goes way too far IMO.

There's a very clear distinction between Open Source and Free Software. The author may have alluded to this with the statement "I prefer free source software to open source software."

However, access to the source code is only a small part of what makes Free Software, well... Free.

The ability to modify any, all or no part of the software. Any software that does not allow the user to modify ANY part, including a "Powered by" is not truly Free software.

Why the debate? Why the arguement? The reason is, quite simply, everyone has a different view.

I do not willingly use non-Free software, and whatever the OSI or OSD may say, it's about Freedom for me, Freedom which this attribution restriction does not protect.

As for the spirit of the article here... The author calls for the end of the debate, and wants people to just "get over it" essentially. I've got no problem with that really. If it doesn't suit you, don't use it.

But when dealing with Free or Open Source software, it's important to realize that the project is built and sustained on the contributions of those involved in the project.

And opinions are contributions too.

"The OSI long ago approved the MPL, and also approved several attribution licenses"

Matt, just because the OSI has approved *some* attribution requirements (and, notably, the Attribution Assurance license was approved before OSD #10 was added), it does not follow that all attribution requirements are OK, nor does it mean that a particular MPL+attribution combination license does not need formal approval by the OSI before being able to imply that it is actually open source (ie. OSI approved).