Making a free License that enforces proper attribution

Post Reply

How do you think about this Idea?

great
0
No votes
good
1
7%
bad
0
No votes
worse
13
93%
 
Total votes: 14

User avatar
KGM
Member
Posts: 191
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2016 19:57
Location: Bonn, Germany

Making a free License that enforces proper attribution

by KGM » Post

As you might know, I didn't like free licenses because it's damn hard to define proper attribution and I think that all free licenses (I know) fail at that point.

Thus I thought of a license having the following feature:

You may redistribute the software or derivative works only on web pages that "start" with some concrete header, given along with the license, for example:

----------------------------------------------------
This is built upon X
----------------------------------------------------

- Can anyone please create such a license? (I'm no FOS licensing expert)

- Do the forum rules allow posting things under such a license?

- How do you think about this idea?
When I first came here, this was all swamp. Everyone said I was daft to build a castle on a swamp, but I built in all the same, just to show them.

User avatar
Hugues Ross
Developer
Posts: 72
Joined: Mon May 06, 2019 22:52
GitHub: Df458
Location: Kitchens, Pantries, etc.
Contact:

Re: Making a free License that enforces proper attribution

by Hugues Ross » Post

I am not a lawyer but that uhh... seems impossible to comply with.

Think about it: Even if software is linked from a web page, it has to be hosted somewhere. Even if you try to comply with the license by making such a page, I'd imagine you could still be liable if the direct download link to the software gets distributed instead of the link to the page itself, something that you can't easily control.

And that's just the first thing I can come up with off the top of my head. And honestly, while I can understand that some folks want more visibility I think the current situation is fine. Trying to force a big neon sign legally seems like the sort of thing that would discourage adoption and, frankly, make the creator look pretty self-centered imo (regardless of whether that's actually the case, that's the reaction I would expect).

User avatar
KGM
Member
Posts: 191
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2016 19:57
Location: Bonn, Germany

Re: Making a free License that enforces proper attribution

by KGM » Post

Hugues Ross wrote:I am not a lawyer but that uhh... seems impossible to comply with.

Think about it: Even if software is linked from a web page, it has to be hosted somewhere. Even if you try to comply with the license by making such a page, I'd imagine you could still be liable if the direct download link to the software gets distributed instead of the link to the page itself, something that you can't easily control.
Well, then just require that the download link is not listed as a webpage, so that you are allowed to have such download links, but you are not allowed to distribute them other than stated.

Such nitty critty details are the reason I haven't yet drafted a license trying to implement this feature, but I think that it is possible to draft such a license.

Btw, I'm egocentric, thats why I care about proper attribution.
When I first came here, this was all swamp. Everyone said I was daft to build a castle on a swamp, but I built in all the same, just to show them.

User avatar
Linuxdirk
Member
Posts: 3218
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 11:21
In-game: Linuxdirk
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Making a free License that enforces proper attribution

by Linuxdirk » Post

KGM wrote:As you might know, I didn't like free licenses …
… and because of this you want us (who DO like free licenses) create a nonfree license for you?

User avatar
KGM
Member
Posts: 191
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2016 19:57
Location: Bonn, Germany

Re: Making a free License that enforces proper attribution

by KGM » Post

Linuxdirk wrote:
KGM wrote:As you might know, I didn't like free licenses …
… and because of this you want us (who DO like free licenses) create a nonfree license for you?
Terms enforcing proper attribution do NOT make a license unfree!

Actually, most free licenses DO require some sort of attribution!

@Linuxdirk: I simply don't get your point. Could you please explain it to me?
When I first came here, this was all swamp. Everyone said I was daft to build a castle on a swamp, but I built in all the same, just to show them.

User avatar
Wuzzy
Member
Posts: 4786
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2012 15:01
GitHub: Wuzzy2
IRC: Wuzzy
In-game: Wuzzy
Contact:

Re: Making a free License that enforces proper attribution

by Wuzzy » Post

Joke's on you: Such a license already exists, it's the original (4-clause) BSD License. The 3rd clause of which says:
3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software
must display the following acknowledgement:
This product includes software developed by the <organization>.
Which sounds very similar to what you want.

Sounds great? NO! Historically, this license has already been tried and it failed spectaculary. Basically, the advertisement clause forced communities to create an ever-growing list of acknowledgements that became larger and larger as the software was combined with lots of other software under the same license, and at one point, it was so large it was simply unmanagable. And to everybody involved, it was a huge PITA just to comply with this stupid clause. It's not really about freedom, but about being pragmatic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licen ... icense%22)
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/bsd.html

So, the FOSS community has already been there a long time ago. We don't need to repeat that, no thanks. As for the BSDs (OpenBSD, NetBSD, FreeBSD): None of those use the original 4-clause BSD License anymore. Follow their example.
Interestingly, the GNU Project does not consider the 4-clause BSD license to be non-free, which makes sense if you look at the Free Software Definition. However, they note that this license has a serious practical problem and strongly recommend to use this license for your own software.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-li ... riginalBSD

Those who fail to study history are doomed to repeat it.

So yeah, please do not include an advertisement clause like in the 4-clause BSD license. It just makes things so annoying.
As you might know, I didn't like free licenses because it's damn hard to define proper attribution and I think that all free licenses (I know) fail at that point.
Why do you believe those licenses “fail”? No attribution = license violation. Simple as that.

User avatar
Hume2
Member
Posts: 709
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2018 08:24
GitHub: Hume2
In-game: Hume2
Location: Czech Republic

Re: Making a free License that enforces proper attribution

by Hume2 » Post

Wuzzy wrote: So yeah, please do not include an advertisement clause like in the 4-clause BSD license. It just makes things so annoying.
I think, that's exactly the point of all of this. He doesn't want anyone to fork his stuff so this could be helpful for him ;)
If you lack the reality, go on a trip or find a job.

User avatar
KGM
Member
Posts: 191
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2016 19:57
Location: Bonn, Germany

Re: Making a free License that enforces proper attribution

by KGM » Post

Thank you Wuzzy, you helped me find the free license that suits me best:

OpenSSL License.

I just did not know that there were licenses with such an advertisement clause!

This changes everything! : )

I think there should be a thread about such licenses.

Thank you very much, Wuzzy!

You helped me find the perfect compromise.
When I first came here, this was all swamp. Everyone said I was daft to build a castle on a swamp, but I built in all the same, just to show them.

User avatar
KGM
Member
Posts: 191
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2016 19:57
Location: Bonn, Germany

Re: Making a free License that enforces proper attribution

by KGM » Post

Hume2 wrote:
Wuzzy wrote: So yeah, please do not include an advertisement clause like in the 4-clause BSD license. It just makes things so annoying.
I think, that's exactly the point of all of this. He doesn't want anyone to fork his stuff so this could be helpful for him ;)
NO! I just want to get credits for all forks, too.
When I first came here, this was all swamp. Everyone said I was daft to build a castle on a swamp, but I built in all the same, just to show them.

User avatar
Napiophelios
Member
Posts: 1035
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2014 01:14
GitHub: Napiophelios
IRC: Nappi
In-game: Nappi

Re: Making a free License that enforces proper attribution

by Napiophelios » Post

duane wrote:
KGM wrote:Cause you don't want anyone to steal your code, publish it, slightly changed, and take all the credits.
(If you think that won't happen anyway, look how many minetest forks, among them some sold for money, exist. (ask wuzzy, he knows!) )
Firstly, if this is what you're worried about, you're doing it for the wrong reasons.

Second, it would be illegal under the gpl or mit licenses to redistribute without crediting the original author. That might not stop someone, but neither would a more restrictive license.

User avatar
KGM
Member
Posts: 191
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2016 19:57
Location: Bonn, Germany

Re: Making a free License that enforces proper attribution

by KGM » Post

Nobody ever reads the readmes.
Nobody cares about credits given there.
When I first came here, this was all swamp. Everyone said I was daft to build a castle on a swamp, but I built in all the same, just to show them.

User avatar
PolySaken
Member
Posts: 817
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2017 05:18
GitHub: PolySaken-I-Am
In-game: PolySaken
Location: Wānaka, Aotearoa
Contact:

Re: Making a free License that enforces proper attribution

by PolySaken » Post

On a related note, is there a license allowing the owner to define what 'attribution' means? Putting 'PS' in white text on a white background doesn't really cut it for me.
Guidebook Lib, for in-game docs | Poly Decor, some cool blocks | Vision Lib, an all-purpose library.

sofar
Developer
Posts: 2146
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015 07:31
GitHub: sofar
IRC: sofar
In-game: sofar

Re: Making a free License that enforces proper attribution

by sofar » Post

KGM wrote:Thank you Wuzzy, you helped me find the free license that suits me best:

OpenSSL License.
*spits up everything he ate in the last month*

The OpenSSL license is about one of the WORST open source licenses. It is fundamentally incompatible with MANY open source licenses.

Please do NOT choose it if you want your code to remain usable by others in mixed content projects.

User avatar
Linuxdirk
Member
Posts: 3218
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 11:21
In-game: Linuxdirk
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Making a free License that enforces proper attribution

by Linuxdirk » Post

sofar wrote:The OpenSSL license is about one of the WORST open source licenses.
I wouldn't even call it an open source license.

User avatar
Wuzzy
Member
Posts: 4786
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2012 15:01
GitHub: Wuzzy2
IRC: Wuzzy
In-game: Wuzzy
Contact:

Re: Making a free License that enforces proper attribution

by Wuzzy » Post

The OpenSSL license is an open source license (it ticks all the boxes), but it includes an advertisement that is near identical to the old 4-clause BSD license. So the same problems apply here, too. You are just making life unneccessarily complicated for the free software community.

Also, I don't understand what any of this has to do with attribution. Advertisement is not the same as attribution.

sfan5
Moderator
Posts: 4094
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 09:44
GitHub: sfan5
IRC: sfan5
Location: Germany

Re: Making a free License that enforces proper attribution

by sfan5 » Post

Note that the OpenSSL license is not OSI-approved, so it might not meet their definition of "Open Source".
Mods: Mesecons | WorldEdit | Nuke & Minetest builds for Windows (32-bit & 64-bit)

User avatar
benrob0329
Member
Posts: 1341
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 22:39
GitHub: Benrob0329
IRC: benrob0329
In-game: benrob03
Location: Michigan
Contact:

Re: Making a free License that enforces proper attribution

by benrob0329 » Post

I quite like the Apache 2.0 for this little piece:
(d) If the Work includes a "NOTICE" text file as part of its
distribution, then any Derivative Works that You distribute must
include a readable copy of the attribution notices contained
within such NOTICE file, excluding those notices that do not
pertain to any part of the Derivative Works, in at least one
of the following places: within a NOTICE text file distributed
as part of the Derivative Works; within the Source form or
documentation, if provided along with the Derivative Works; or,
within a display generated by the Derivative Works, if and
wherever such third-party notices normally appear. The contents
of the NOTICE file are for informational purposes only and
do not modify the License. You may add Your own attribution
notices within Derivative Works that You distribute, alongside
or as an addendum to the NOTICE text from the Work, provided
that such additional attribution notices cannot be construed
as modifying the License.
https://choosealicense.com/licenses/apache-2.0/

However, the Apache 2.0 is also not the best for all projects, especially ones which have to be a part of a larger GPL-licensed code because of the complicated nature of GPL-compatibility (see https://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html).

EDIT: The MIT License also requires that the license and copyright notice be included in all versions of the software, which would include binary versions.
See: https://opensource.stackexchange.com/qu ... eones-code

User avatar
runs
Member
Posts: 3225
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2018 08:32

Re: Making a free License that enforces proper attribution

by runs » Post

Anyone who uses the license is welcome to it. But also users should exercise the right to refuse it and not use anything that has this license.

It's not Open Source, it's something else. So Minetest must run away from this kind of license like the plague.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Semrush [Bot] and 18 guests