Hello,
We are currently distributing BitMagic in Debian, and a discussion has arisen regarding the acknowledgement clause in your license (https://github.com/tlk00/BitMagic/blob/master/LICENSE#L19-L21):
Important! We ask you to explicitly mention BitMagic project in any derived work or our published
materials. Proper BitMagic reference on your product/project page is a REQUIREMENT
for using the Library.
Acknowledgement (or advertising) clauses are notoriously difficult to comply with for users who run software via Linux distributions or containers, as these may bundle thousands of different components. This makes it challenging for users to determine which attributions should be included in their communications. In addition, such clauses complicate the license landscape, since each acknowledgement requirement is project-specific.
Some major contributors to the free software ecosystem, such as the University of California, Berkeley, have moved away from these types of clauses. Many other projects have instead rephrased them to communicate the intent without creating a formal binding requirement. For example, you could replace “is a REQUIREMENT for using the library” with wording such as “is essential to the sustainability of our project.”
Overall, acknowledgement clauses are rarely enforced in practice, and it is generally perceived that non-binding requests achieve a similar effect without the associated drawbacks.
Would you consider making your close non-binding?
Best regards,
Charles
Hello,
We are currently distributing BitMagic in Debian, and a discussion has arisen regarding the acknowledgement clause in your license (https://github.com/tlk00/BitMagic/blob/master/LICENSE#L19-L21):
Acknowledgement (or advertising) clauses are notoriously difficult to comply with for users who run software via Linux distributions or containers, as these may bundle thousands of different components. This makes it challenging for users to determine which attributions should be included in their communications. In addition, such clauses complicate the license landscape, since each acknowledgement requirement is project-specific.
Some major contributors to the free software ecosystem, such as the University of California, Berkeley, have moved away from these types of clauses. Many other projects have instead rephrased them to communicate the intent without creating a formal binding requirement. For example, you could replace “is a REQUIREMENT for using the library” with wording such as “is essential to the sustainability of our project.”
Overall, acknowledgement clauses are rarely enforced in practice, and it is generally perceived that non-binding requests achieve a similar effect without the associated drawbacks.
Would you consider making your close non-binding?
Best regards,
Charles