On 3/26/2020 11:01 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 3/26/20 7:48 PM, McCoy Smith wrote: >> If AAL is a candidate for removal, should *all* licenses which have that >> sort of attribution requirement also be removed? > If you know of other licenses we passed with badgeware requirements, > please name them. Because yes, they should all be candidates for removal. > > Note that, for example, the GPLv3 requirement isn't a "badgeware" > requirement, because it gives makers of derivative works flexibility in > exactly how the software is attributed. One of the chief problems with > badgeware requirements like the AAL is that it effectively prevents > downstream developers from ever removing the GUI from the program, or > from running it on an embedded system (thus violating OSD6 and/or OSD10). > Bruce Perens submitted a request to L-R back last August that CPAL be retired. Pam Pamela S. Chestek Chestek Legal PO Box 2492 Raleigh, NC 27602 919-800-8033 [email protected] www.chesteklegal.com _______________________________________________ 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 [email protected] http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
