creditstxt / credit-requirement Goto Github PK

I'm a bit confused as to why conventions.md lists conventions for works other than software. This is a software license exception after all.

Can GPL software link against MIT + Credit Requirement, for instance?

I’d prefer to give a specific, standard place to look as the default - Contributors.txt or some such. If that’s not present, then fall back on the current language.

This gives some guidance to new developers as to how they might use it, and gives a standard place to make at least a first look for those who have to comply.

Are we close to 1.0.0?

"Credit Requirement" is 100% descriptive of what the legal text tries to do, and therefore not protectable as a trademark, or particularly fun.

Perhaps we could think of a memorable and suggestive name for the project?

The license feels a bit unclear on how the license has to be handled by different forms of derivatives, and whether or not it applies to both source and software, or just the software itself.

If somebody modifies source that uses these credit requirements, are they required to give credit where the source is accessible, or only when compiled and distributed that way?

Does derivative software also need to use these requirements if the license these requirements were added to requires derivatives to use the same license? And what if the license doesn't propagate?

If somebody properly credits a software or service, then somebody else bundles that software or service, does the bundler also have to give credit?

Some licenses contain a clause not permitting Modified and extended versions must be under the same license., I assume a license with this license as an addendum technically isn't the same license, so would this make them incompatible?

Would be good somewhere to specify how this is to be indicated in the primary license, so that scanners can pick it up reliably.

Resolved issues have been crossed out.

Specific feedback

"Who to Credit"

This section mentions what to do if the existing credits are complete, and if they are absent. Are there any situations where independent research is needed?

"Software provided as a service" (Conventions)

For software provided as a service, give credits in credits.txt, according to https://creditstxt.com.

This assumes that all software provided as a service is a website. I've written a few Discord bots, and the convention (for providing source code) there is to provide a command that offers the source, and to link to it from your "about" command. This should be phrased to include such services.

I also think this section could be merged with the "How to Credit" section.

"How to Credit"

and the public at large

I'm not fond of this. I was contributing to a discord.py bot library (see the end of this issue) that can only be used by the owner of each bot that uses it. Providing credit to the public at large would be overkill for two reasons:

• most people are not allowed to use my software, only bot owners
• many bots are not even public bots, which makes this license exception unclear. What if I use Credits Requirement software to make a password-protected website? Would I have to link to credits.txt in the HTTP Basic Auth dialog?

In general, you must give credit in such a way that the audience for your good or service, and the public at large, can freely and readily find a written notice identifying each contributor, by name, as a contributor to this software, and this software, by name, as a contribution to your good or service.

This "and this software" tripped me up. What is it doing there?

Broad feedback

This… wasn't what I was really after. To me this seems like a "network copyleft" of attribution, in that any software that indirectly uses software with this exception is now obligated to credit the contributors to that library. I'll tell you a bit about my situation. I wrote this library: https://github.com/bmintz/import-expression-parser with the intention of it being imported by this library: https://github.com/Gorialis/jishaku. The way that most people use jishaku is by simply installing it from pip and loading it as an extension into their bot. When I wrote Import Expression Parser, I was reading your blog and used the Charity public license, but eventually went back to the MIT license because I wasn't sure if @Gorialis would accept it if I used a young, unknown license. Today, I might have used the Blue Oak Model License, as I see it like an easy to read Apache 2.0, but I don't like that it doesn't require credit. Were I to use Blue Oak + Credit Requirement for Import Expression Parser, it would definitely not be accepted, since now every user of jishaku would be required to credit me. Meanwhile, as mentioned above, most users of the software cannot use my component of it. So really in my situation I was looking for Blue Oak + the attribution requirements of the MIT license. Something where attribution is only required in copies of the code.

Hopefully this makes sense.