As an update to this thread, I've revived my interest in trying to keep GPLv3 compatibility with this approach; a reasonable, attribution terms for a MIT derived license or the GPLv3 itself (under 7b).
However, I've expanded the scope of this beyond simply crafting a license that requires attribution. For this sort of project to work, it requires community engagement from the ground up -- even for works that don't have this sort of requirement. Hence, I've started an open source project for effective attribution for OSS projects. If you are interested, I'd love to have collaborators. http://tip-o-the-hat.org In some ways, the license is dead last. The order of priorities are: 1. Create a set of open source components that can be used for the visual display of OSS attributions in a manner that satisfies both the GPLv3 requirements as well as being broadly useful enough for projects to incorporate. 2. Create a registry of OSS works and dependencies with pretty logos, license terms, and others. This would be automated using various distribution manifests as possible. 3. Encourage adoption by open source projects even if such an approach isn't mandated by any license -- it's just the right thing to do. I'm sure others will agree once it is convenient and easy. Then, only then, would there be sufficient community backing to consider the need for licensing terms to enforce an emergent consensus on acceptable attribution practices for those who might otherwise wish to not play along. However, these terms should have a clear interpretation as voluntarily implemented by a wide variety of projects. Thank you for listening. I hope you might engage. Best, Clark _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
