We now note that that we do not waive our attribution requirements for Spritely Goblins, which are present in Apache v2 (and for that matter, CC BY, CC BY-SA, and most FOSS licenses) https://codeberg.org/spritely/goblins/pulls/998/files
-
Btw I have heard at least one prominent FOSS person (I'm choosing to not fill their notifications here by identifying them) that nobody cares about attribution requirements (and particularly not enforcing them). But to me, attribution is what I care about MORE than any other licensing requirements, more than copyleft "share-alike" style provisions, etc.
If you feel similarly, it would be good to hear on this thread. Perhaps even copying a similar notice into your project is a good idea.
@cwebber don't give a shit about copyright but yes attribution is meaningful to me - as others have said respect is important, plus i want to give people ways to learn more if i learned. we exist in a social web and recognizing that web is valuable for us and others
-
@fogti I’m not talking about laws. See https://rollenspiel.social/@ArneBab/117441148957636180
@ArneBab Having source available is neither sufficient (although/especially lack of attribution makes it worse), nor necessary (due to the ability to disassemble code).
And given that the "open source" is very often still based upon paywalled papers and standards, and often also hidden documentation (/ documentation licensed in a way that makes usage in source code difficult), I don't consider it sufficient anymore. It isn't sufficiently pervasive.
Source code is an intermediate representation
-
Btw I have heard at least one prominent FOSS person (I'm choosing to not fill their notifications here by identifying them) that nobody cares about attribution requirements (and particularly not enforcing them). But to me, attribution is what I care about MORE than any other licensing requirements, more than copyleft "share-alike" style provisions, etc.
If you feel similarly, it would be good to hear on this thread. Perhaps even copying a similar notice into your project is a good idea.
I tend to release things under ISC/MIT/BSD (2-clause) type licenses because attribution is nice—theoretically required by the licenses—and more significant to me than any share-alike terms. But in the end, I'm more interested in solving problems and sharing those solutions. And similar to @datarama's insightful reply, "as long as 1. you don't claim that you made my work, 2. you don't claim that I made your work."
-
Btw I have heard at least one prominent FOSS person (I'm choosing to not fill their notifications here by identifying them) that nobody cares about attribution requirements (and particularly not enforcing them). But to me, attribution is what I care about MORE than any other licensing requirements, more than copyleft "share-alike" style provisions, etc.
If you feel similarly, it would be good to hear on this thread. Perhaps even copying a similar notice into your project is a good idea.
@cwebber It is an interesting thought & problem.
The issue with any licensing is firstly enforceability & legality. Just because you put something in a license file doesn't mean you can enforce (as in courts would rule in your favour).
Big OSS licenses have the advantage of being legally verified and supported by precedent.
-
@ArneBab Having source available is neither sufficient (although/especially lack of attribution makes it worse), nor necessary (due to the ability to disassemble code).
And given that the "open source" is very often still based upon paywalled papers and standards, and often also hidden documentation (/ documentation licensed in a way that makes usage in source code difficult), I don't consider it sufficient anymore. It isn't sufficiently pervasive.
Source code is an intermediate representation
@fogti I disagree.
Having the source available may not be sufficient, but it is often necessary.
Disassembling code does not recover comments and also misses a lot of other context.
But I gave that argument in a more general way in the other toot:
https://rollenspiel.social/@ArneBab/117441148957636180Source code is the preferred form of making modifications to something – as the GPLv3 succinctly defines it.
-
@cwebber It is an interesting thought & problem.
The issue with any licensing is firstly enforceability & legality. Just because you put something in a license file doesn't mean you can enforce (as in courts would rule in your favour).
Big OSS licenses have the advantage of being legally verified and supported by precedent.
@ilia These clauses already exist in prominent, and previously enforced, licenses. We didn't add anything, just called attention to the clauses.
(And yes, I have done a substantial amount of work on FOSS licensing issues.)
-
@cwebber attribution seems like the most basic social reciprocity available and, as you mentioned, probably the most important. "where did you get *awesome idea from*? "oh *awesom idea* came from *this person*. aren't they neat?"
-
@cwebber Attribution is pretty much the only thing I ever cared about (and I still care about it, very much). I also do not believe prominent people when they say they "don't care" about attribution. Like, really? So if someone had never credited your work your entire career and/or claimed it for themselves, you think you'd be in the same position as you are now? Or is attribution only important when you're on your way up the ladder?
I have a *lot* of feelings on attribution, in fact.@aud @cwebber I care more, or mostly, about giving proper attribution for my inputs and sources (in both the foss and academic/research senses) than I do about asserting or defending my own. That's a focus on expectations and standards of behaviour, rather than a mechanism of enforcement. Unfortunately one requires the other, and any pretense of good behaviour without enforcement has been lost.
-
Btw I have heard at least one prominent FOSS person (I'm choosing to not fill their notifications here by identifying them) that nobody cares about attribution requirements (and particularly not enforcing them). But to me, attribution is what I care about MORE than any other licensing requirements, more than copyleft "share-alike" style provisions, etc.
If you feel similarly, it would be good to hear on this thread. Perhaps even copying a similar notice into your project is a good idea.
@cwebber@social.coop i personally do not care that my own contributions are attributed, and at least until recently, in most cases, have therefore been inclined to release my own code under as close to public domain as circumstances allow. i am sure why you can understand that i feel a bit differently as of late.
but regardless, i care very much that the wishes of those who do want attribution are respected. all of this useful source code, and all you want in exchange is for me to make sure you are properly credited? that request seems positively miniscule in comparison to what else one might reasonably want in exchange.
i think my own position is evidence that if people didn't care, they probably just wouldn't bother using licenses that required attribution. -
Btw I have heard at least one prominent FOSS person (I'm choosing to not fill their notifications here by identifying them) that nobody cares about attribution requirements (and particularly not enforcing them). But to me, attribution is what I care about MORE than any other licensing requirements, more than copyleft "share-alike" style provisions, etc.
If you feel similarly, it would be good to hear on this thread. Perhaps even copying a similar notice into your project is a good idea.
@cwebber attribution is literally the only possible reward when you give your software away for free. It's all there is, so it's all that matters.
-
Btw I have heard at least one prominent FOSS person (I'm choosing to not fill their notifications here by identifying them) that nobody cares about attribution requirements (and particularly not enforcing them). But to me, attribution is what I care about MORE than any other licensing requirements, more than copyleft "share-alike" style provisions, etc.
If you feel similarly, it would be good to hear on this thread. Perhaps even copying a similar notice into your project is a good idea.
@cwebber I hate copyright but want some credit for stuff I do, cuz that's the coolest thing someone can give me for the work I do for fun. So, the thing I care about the most is attribution, and that is why I license my stuff copyfree. If I didn't care, I would license it public domain, but attribution feels kinda like praise; I made something useful enough for someone to use, and I know that because they are attributing me
-
Btw I have heard at least one prominent FOSS person (I'm choosing to not fill their notifications here by identifying them) that nobody cares about attribution requirements (and particularly not enforcing them). But to me, attribution is what I care about MORE than any other licensing requirements, more than copyleft "share-alike" style provisions, etc.
If you feel similarly, it would be good to hear on this thread. Perhaps even copying a similar notice into your project is a good idea.
I feel somewhat different about the whole issue, and I want to underline something:
Permissive licenses are about developer freedom, but copyleft licenses are about user freedom. I care about user freedom more than developer freedom.
Another angle is, if I create a tool/library and I share it for free, it's GPLv3. User freedom is non-negotiable plus, I don't want my free work to be sold to anyone. It's created to be free as in beer and as in speech.
I don't allow otherwise.
-
I feel somewhat different about the whole issue, and I want to underline something:
Permissive licenses are about developer freedom, but copyleft licenses are about user freedom. I care about user freedom more than developer freedom.
Another angle is, if I create a tool/library and I share it for free, it's GPLv3. User freedom is non-negotiable plus, I don't want my free work to be sold to anyone. It's created to be free as in beer and as in speech.
I don't allow otherwise.
@bayindirh yes, I am one of the people who popularized "user freedom" as a term, partly in my talks about copyleft.
-
Btw I have heard at least one prominent FOSS person (I'm choosing to not fill their notifications here by identifying them) that nobody cares about attribution requirements (and particularly not enforcing them). But to me, attribution is what I care about MORE than any other licensing requirements, more than copyleft "share-alike" style provisions, etc.
If you feel similarly, it would be good to hear on this thread. Perhaps even copying a similar notice into your project is a good idea.
@cwebber +1 to all of the above. Attribution is just so cheap to do, it's a red flag when it's too much effort for somebody.
-
@bayindirh yes, I am one of the people who popularized "user freedom" as a term, partly in my talks about copyleft.
@cwebber Kudos to you. I don't remember where I read it first, but I write it everywhere the discussion permits.
From my understanding many FOSS developers don't understand how GPL/copyleft works, and as a result they are afraid of it.
Many developers don't care as well, and love MIT because it's "carefree".
Every license has its place, but there shall be more GPL software IMHO.
-
Btw I have heard at least one prominent FOSS person (I'm choosing to not fill their notifications here by identifying them) that nobody cares about attribution requirements (and particularly not enforcing them). But to me, attribution is what I care about MORE than any other licensing requirements, more than copyleft "share-alike" style provisions, etc.
If you feel similarly, it would be good to hear on this thread. Perhaps even copying a similar notice into your project is a good idea.
I have a project repository that started out as a fork and eventually morphed into a project that was reworked into something beyond the original scope to become something new.
I still have attributions to the original author and posted the links to the previously forked repository. It was the spark, after all, and it is just as relevant in the timeline as it was when it was the origin.
Given that the project is a list (in this case, a blocklist), it can't really be copyrighted.
-
Btw I have heard at least one prominent FOSS person (I'm choosing to not fill their notifications here by identifying them) that nobody cares about attribution requirements (and particularly not enforcing them). But to me, attribution is what I care about MORE than any other licensing requirements, more than copyleft "share-alike" style provisions, etc.
If you feel similarly, it would be good to hear on this thread. Perhaps even copying a similar notice into your project is a good idea.
@cwebber My history is in both academic computer science and physics, and in both fields attribution is *paramount*. Reviewers will, correctly, hold papers back from publication if work isn't cited properly, especially if it's the reviewer's own work
Of course in practice some things things slip by, work is stolen between peers and between professors and students all the time, but the intention is understood and important.
This inability to cite is perhaps the first thing that bothered me about LLMs. Code isn't cited, books and articles aren't cited, websites and blogs aren't cited (in addition to stealing meaningful traffic from them while paradoxically hammering them with scraping requests). It all goes to these companies' fundamental business model, which of course boils down to capitalism's standard procedure - steal the commons, then sell it back to us.
-
@ilia These clauses already exist in prominent, and previously enforced, licenses. We didn't add anything, just called attention to the clauses.
(And yes, I have done a substantial amount of work on FOSS licensing issues.)
@cwebber ah, good to know, thanks for clarifying IANAL n'all that...
-
@fnohe @xinniw @cwebber in my experience most copyright reform suggestions that seek to enlargen the space for remixing also seek to ensurine some form of attribution requirement into law.
i even saw a suggestion that every song should have dozens or even hundreds of people in the writing credits, because even when not directly remixing they suggested there should be a culture of "citing your sources" in music that works pretty much like academic citations for works that had any influence. -
Btw I have heard at least one prominent FOSS person (I'm choosing to not fill their notifications here by identifying them) that nobody cares about attribution requirements (and particularly not enforcing them). But to me, attribution is what I care about MORE than any other licensing requirements, more than copyleft "share-alike" style provisions, etc.
If you feel similarly, it would be good to hear on this thread. Perhaps even copying a similar notice into your project is a good idea.
@cwebber As a musician, attribution is often the only way people know where some random background music in their podcast/other production came from. I appreciate attribution very much indeed.
