Re: Thoughts on GPL's Appropriate Legal Notices? or the CPAL?
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011, at 01:37 PM, Don Armstrong wrote:
> An interactive user interface displays "Appropriate Legal Notices"
> to the extent that it includes a convenient and prominently
> visible feature that (1) displays an appropriate copyright notice,
> and (2) tells the user that there is no warranty for the work
> (except to the extent that warranties are provided), that
> licensees may convey the work under this License, and how to view
> a copy of this License.
> That is, the work can require the displaying of the Copyright notice
> and that there is no warranty, and that's it. The only other thing
> that can be done is "[r]equiring [the] preservation of specified
> reasonable legal notices", but that does not include the displaying of
> those notices.
I think these are the criteria used to know when a work is displaying
Appropriate Legal Notices, not that it would limit items to be included.
In 7(b) the GPLv3 provides for permissive additions which
"Requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal notices
or author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate
Legal Notices displayed by works containing it"
So, I think Attribution is absolutely included, the question for me is
if "Powered By SugarCRM" is a reasonable author attribution. I like
Simon's wording of something that would be covered...
| (By contrast, "incorporates code from SugarCRM" would remain a true
| and is nicely neutral: a non-binding request to acknowledge use of
| is much less adversarial and probably has about the same practical
My broader question is if Debian would permit the distribution of works
with a reasonable attribution requirement.