| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
What is "reasonable"What is "reasonable"Posted Nov 30, 2006 16:24 UTC (Thu) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270)Parent article: What is open source?
Much of the discussion here is about free versus open and whether the license would meet the OSD definition of a free license. On the other hand, the current GPLv3 draft explicitly allows adding terms requiring author attribution.
Without considering whether the rest of the license would be GPLv3 compatible, but the specific terms in Exhibit B (presenting the logo) seem to be allowed by GPLv3. To argue that they aren't would require claiming they weren't "reasonable", which would be pretty difficult in the absence of any guideline for "reasonability".
(Log in to post comments)
What is "reasonable" Posted Dec 1, 2006 5:57 UTC (Fri) by jstAusr (guest, #27224) [Link] Yes but, doesn't it become unreasonable when the combination of all the sofware that should be attributed each wants an individual space for their logo? If this was to be considered acceptable everyone would want their fair share of the space.
Re: What is "reasonable" Posted Dec 1, 2006 23:32 UTC (Fri) by ldo (subscriber, #40946) [Link] >Yes but, doesn't it become unreasonable when the combination of all the This is exactly right. One of Richard Stallman's requirements for a Free Software licence is that it must be compatible with itself. That is, you should be able to take code from two different pieces of software, both covered by the same licence (or suitably minor variations thereof) and combine them. He uses the TEX licence as an example of one that isn't compatible with itself--it doesn't let you do this. Insistence on including everybody's logos will sooner or later lead to a similar problem.
|
|
||||||||||||