Re: Thoughts on GPL's Appropriate Legal Notices? or the CPAL?
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011, at 09:36 AM, Ben Finney wrote:
> I'll mention, again, that this forum is not appropriate for general
> discussion about licenses in the absence of an actual existing work that
> is proposed for (or already in) Debian.
I'm working to open source a medical informatics package,
RexDB, as well as a query language, HTSQL it uses; both of
these are used by dozens of research groups (and hopefully
many more in the coming years). In particular, one of the
primary benefits to using a standard open source license is
that the work would be included alongside other Free Software
on fine distributions such as Debian. This is why I'm here.
What seems to tip the scale in favor of doing an open source
release is the GPLv3's provisions for author attribution, in
particular as some sort of "Incorporates RexDB" (thanks Simon)
message. As Richard noted allowing some sort of required
attribution notice is part of the GPLv3 design. If we added
a clause requiring attribution, pursuant to 7(b) of the GPL
would Debian legal have any specific issue with this?
In particular, both Zarafa and SugarCRM language request a
logo, or if not technically feasible, a short phrase
"Powered By SugarCRM" or "Initial Development by Zarafa".
We would be looking to do something similar and I'm asking
for specific thoughts on the appropriateness of this for
inclusion in Debian. Thank you for your kind consideration.