> Do you think an updated AAL could comply with the OSD? I personally think so. I expect the next step in this process would be for someone to find the original author of the AAL to discuss this option.
henrik On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 2:38 PM Hillel Coren <hillelco...@gmail.com> wrote: > Understood, I think then we're in agreement then :) > > Do you think an updated AAL could comply with the OSD? > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 2:07 PM Kevin P. Fleming <kevin+...@km6g.us> > wrote: > >> I was responding to your more general question "Do you believe a >> developer should have the option to share their code without fearing a >> competitor will use their code against them?". That was not specific >> to any attribution requirement or place of the attribution. >> >> On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 6:46 AM Hillel Coren <hillelco...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > Hi Kevin, >> > >> > Adding an attribution (for example in the page footer) doesn't prevent >> a business from reselling the app, it just makes it less likely they'll >> want to. >> > >> > On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 1:16 PM Kevin P. Fleming <kevin+...@km6g.us> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> Developers do have that option, but that option is not compliant with >> >> the OSD (since that is explicitly discrimination against a specific >> >> field of endeavor), and thus any license which provides that feature >> >> is not OSD-compliant. The feature you are asking for is the same core >> >> feature of the Commons Clause, the SSPL, and all of the other licenses >> >> which attempt to protect the code's authors by disallowing other >> >> group(s) from selling or hosting the software. >> >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 2:54 AM Hillel Coren <hillelco...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > Thanks for your email! Can we try approaching it from a different >> perspective... >> >> > >> >> > Do you believe a developer should have the option to share their >> code without fearing a competitor will use their code against them? >> >> > >> >> > This is from the FAQ on opensource.org: "But depending on the >> license, you probably can't stop your customers from selling it in the same >> manner as you." >> >> > >> >> > I see the AAL as a good choice here, is there another license you >> would recommend? >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 11:55 PM Lukas Atkinson < >> opensou...@lukasatkinson.de> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 at 20:41, Syed Arsalan Hussain Shah wrote: >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Regarding ALL >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Josh claims that there is no repository on github >> https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/2020-March/021667.html >> >> >>> >> >> >>> But the >> https://github.com/search?q=attribution+assurance+license&type=Code >> gives me so many respostiores and I beleive AAL is widely used License. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Amazingly, most AAL uses I see on Github have silently modified the >> license to remove the GPG requirement (which nearly no one complies with >> anyway? [1]). And most of the modified AALs seem to be in old forks of >> InvoiceNinja software or Attendize? Neither is the license particularly >> widely used, nor are many people using the license as currently approved. >> >> >> >> >> >> My guess is that at most 100 primary authors on Github use the >> license, as based on a query [2] looking only at license files, excluding >> one prolific author, three frequently forked projects, and excluding the >> keyword “Affero” to detect license databases. Libraries.io lists ~250 >> packages using the AAL [3], but there seem to be severe data quality issues. >> >> >> >> >> >> [1]: >> https://github.com/search?q=%22attribution+assurance+license%22+%22BEGIN+PGP+SIGNED+MESSAGE%22&type=Code >> >> >> [2]: >> >> >> >> https://github.com/search?q=%22attribution+assurance+license%22+filename%3ALICENSE+NOT+Attendize+NOT+%22Hillel+Coren%22+NOT+clipbucket+NOT+craterapp+NOT+Affero&type=Code >> >> >> [3]: https://libraries.io/licenses/AAL >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> > I have to add, I find it pretty ironic that your own site uses >> an attribution based license, the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 >> International License :) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The problem isn't attribution – nearly every open source license >> requires some copyright-like attribution notices to be shown. If you want a >> license that handles attributions very well and fairly, consider Apache 2.0 >> with its NOTICE file mechanism. >> >> >> The problem is that the AAL perverts the idea of reasonable >> attribution into a problematic requirement to carry advertising-like >> attributions in a prominently visible place. >> >> >> >> >> >> Attribution means different things in different licenses. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> >> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and >> not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by >> the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email >> address. >> >> >> >> >> >> License-discuss mailing list >> >> >> License-discuss@lists.opensource.org >> >> >> >> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org >> >> > >> >> > _______________________________________________ >> >> > The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not >> necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the >> Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address. >> >> > >> >> > License-discuss mailing list >> >> > License-discuss@lists.opensource.org >> >> > >> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not >> necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the >> Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address. >> >> >> >> License-discuss mailing list >> >> License-discuss@lists.opensource.org >> >> >> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not >> necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the >> Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address. >> > >> > License-discuss mailing list >> > License-discuss@lists.opensource.org >> > >> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not >> necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the >> Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address. >> >> License-discuss mailing list >> License-discuss@lists.opensource.org >> >> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org >> > _______________________________________________ > The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not > necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the > Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address. > > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@lists.opensource.org > > http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org > -- henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi +358-40-5697354 skype: henrik.ingo irc: hingo www.openlife.cc My LinkedIn profile: http://fi.linkedin.com/pub/henrik-ingo/3/232/8a7
_______________________________________________ The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address. License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
