Credit and Free Software

Hans Reiser - you're thinking ReiserFS, and you'd be right - has a proposal to slather Free Software with credits for its authors. Good? Bad? This is something the community has generally moved away from, but maybe Reiser has a good point. Newsforge is part of OSDN.

Points not to be discounted lightly

I strongly agree with Reiser on this issue. Although he doesn't
necessarily argue for "slathering" software with attributions, rather
he argues convincingly IMO that the credit for a piece of software
should remain visible to the public users. This can be tastefully
done easily, the point is that leaving the credit for writing the
software in the source code is pointless as most people don't ever
read the source code.

It isn't even so much that someone can't supply a new spalsh screen,
it just needs to include attributions to the original authors. I
think he makes some very interesting and very valid points. It is
interesting to note as he states, that although Stallman is a huge
contributor to many projects, he rarely gets credited on anything.
I feel the same way as Reiser on this, even though Stallman doesn't
want to burden the software with licensing restrictions, it bothers
me that he gets so little in the way of credit for what he has helped
to bring about.

Re:Points not to be discounted lightly

People that don't read the source code arent the sort of people who are likely to rember names IMO. (Or care about names generaly for that matter)

Also doesn't this proposed license contradict the definition of a freesoftware license?

And your point about stallman is probably not a good example. He is one of the very few developers that are well known and have got a big reputation in the opensource community.
What Reiser was saying is it would be an incentive to smaller developers to contribute stuff if they thought that someone somewhere would randomly see their name splashed on the screen. I think I'm inclined to disagree with this basicaly selfrightosness

Re:Points not to be discounted lightly

Help\About

Nuff said? Nuff said.

(FreeGEM Desktop does about the same thing under Desk\Info)

-uso.

Re:Points not to be discounted lightly

Last I checked, the man pages of nearly all software show the authors' names. And most of the time, it is a program's web page that people need to go to for help pr useful info, and those are always filled with names of people who worked on it. I don't see why we need much more than that.

Haven't We Been Here Before

It seems history, even short term history repeats itself. This was tried in the past by the BSD license and was taken out [berkeley.edu] because it is way too onerous. The problems with requiring such credit are well enumerated by the Free Software Foundation in the essay entitled "The BSD License Problem" [gnu.org].

On the surface, it sounds like a good idea until you consider what it means to give prominent credit to all the major people who are involved with a piece of software. The larger a project is the larger the number of active participants. More importantly when a project gets large enough it acquires dependencies that provide significant functionality which also are as deserving of credit as the original application developers.

For example I built a news aggregator that is an now a source code available project on GotDotNet [gotdotnet.com] that has 70 developers signed up with about a dozen having been active in one shape or the other. There are also dependencies on three external libraries that also provide significant functionality. If this was a commercial product exactly how feasible would it be for me to give prominence to everyone who provided significant value to the application? What metric would I use?

Re:Points not to be discounted lightly

I have some significant problems with - what is the difference between this concept and what was the original BIG problem with "BSD Style licenses" where you had to display the copyright notice at boot time/use time? Remember that??? The GPL people stayed away from BSD licenses because of this copyright clause. Now that the BSD licenses don't have the copyright notice they are perhaps "more free" that GPL since they don't have the "contribute the changes back" requirement!

Further - the whole concept behind BSD and GPL style licenses is that the user is free to change/modify/use the software as needed. A change to "give the author credit" is a definite usage requirement!!!! It isn't free then?!?!

Look - the authors have a right to put their code under ANY license requirement they like. If they choose to do this - well, I just don't think the software would then qualify as either Free or Open Source software in my mind.

Bad credit? No credit?

Then the new GPL Secured Platinum Card from RMS is for you! All the credit you ever wanted, in one small piece of code.

the purpose of free software for many IS credit

I know quite a few people who have written second rate software under Free licenses for nothing more than a bit of prestige and something to write on their CV. Indeed, even some of the more major F/OSS contributors seem to take development as a career advancement/fame trip.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with this, mind. I just want to remind some of the zealots that writing Free software is often not the selfless idealistic cause some make it out to be.

Re:the purpose of free software for many IS credit

Using Ayn Rand's clarified definition, I'd say selfish reasons are the best and most prominent reasons to write good software. Still using Ayn Rand-compliant vocabulary, Reiser is being very selfless.

Translation: people write software for the feeling of self-fullfillment, self-actualization, and personal pride. This is a personal experiece that does not require anyone else's opinion to realize; you know you've given everything you could. Reiser, however, requires the recognition of others, needs his "greatness" (extremely debatable) to be recognized and advertised by others. This is what people mean by "his ego problems". He is "without self", or "selfless".

More on a practical point, Hans Reiser has been completely unable to prove that (1) the current setup is insufficient, (2) anything would be gained by modifying the current setup, and (3) his proposals would do less harm than good.

Further, I have supreme doubts that reputation is the driving force for the best programers. Respect of your peers is a reward. Delivering bad code would cause you to lose respect, and that lose would be a source of fear. Fear does not drive good development. Self-actualization drives good development, and that is incompatible with fear of resentment. Good programers (s/programers/anything) may enjoy the respect of their peers, but that is quite different from fear for your reputation. Reiser is fearful, and ReiserFS is a testament to bad code.

OSS belongs to the community

OSS belongs to the community. There's really no need for credits. Where would we draw the line if we allowed credits? banner ads? annoying pleas for money? pop up windows?

Re:OSS belongs to the community

OSS belongs to the community.

No way. When I write OS software, I retain the copyright. The community didn't write the software, I did. I freely allow the community to make use of it in practically any manner that they see fit, but that still doesn't mean that I have lost the ownership of my work.

Give 'em credit!

Listen. The authors wrote the software. They did so with the knowledge that it would be distributed freely (as in libremente) and as such they would probably not make any money off it. Despite this, they have put a lot of effort, blood, sweat and tears into making something that is reasonably functional, efficient and safe to use. I know exactly how difficult it is to produce good software.

The way I see it, the authors deserve to have credits all over the free software that they made. And when you run free software, don't tell yourself that it's your right to take someone else's work and use it "just because." You have the right to use it because THEY gave you that right.

Re:Give 'em credit!

And when you run free software, don't tell yourself that it's your right to take someone else's work and use it "just because." You have the right to use it because THEY gave you that right.

While that's true on it's face, I would counter that making the fruits of your labor available to others in the community is not an entirely selfless act.

Really, quality OSS projects are not the work of a single person. They're the result of wide-ranging teams who, thanks to the GPL, are able to apply many eyes, ideas and approaches. That's the whole strength of OSS.

Now, I do believe it's important to give credit to those who work hard, but I also believe it's futile to toss credits in the face of someone who doesn't give a toss (and not giving a toss is a right the GPL gives you, as well).

Doubled Edged Sword

First, I think that mostly FOSS developers and engineers can appreciate the work that goes into this stuff. So I sortof agree that additional credit might be good as a way of thanking those who have made contributions. Software, especially application software, tends to be like a collage. Do you credit everyone equally? Do some people get more credit? What happens if we forget to thank/credit certain people along the way? I think this could be a disaster and potential hurt the movement.

This is a good idea.

For many who contribute, the only compensation they see is in recognition. Everybody knows who Linux is, but how about the guy that put sed together?

I would like to propose that, in addition to the mandatory screensaver displaying the credits, that every fifth time you run a utility its name, version number, date of creation, and author are read through the speaker. This way, people can truly appreciate the donation of software by others. To celebrate Free Software's global approach towards solving problems, this should be subtitled on the screen in the user's native language. This way, we can truly feel the joy of helping people without compensation while being compensated for it.

Not sure I agree with his thinking

Hans talks about how 99% of people, as it stands, don't see the names of the folks responsible for the software they turned out. I'd counter that 99% of the people certainly could care less, that 99% of people leave movies before the credits are even halfway through and habitually tune them out to begin with.

IMO, the people who are going to care are already seeing the names, either in the source or at the project websites or in CVS. To everyone else, any sort of more obtrusive crediting is just going to be obnoxious, and they're still not going to know any more names then they did before.

The whole point, if anyone still remembers the original goal of the majority of OSS projects, is to write some kick-ass code that's going to be done the Right Way, rather than the short-cutty kludgy way that most programmers are forced to code at work. To me, this includes making the software as elegant and streamlined as possible, and the various methods of ego gratification I can think of (extra splash screens, etc) seem incompatible with this.

This sucks.

Like someone else mentioned above, this is not free software. If you write software that throws a bunch of credits in people's face all the time (the screensaver idea is an awful one), distros will be inclined not to use your software by default if the license forces the issue. Imagine if business contributes to a free software project and then insists that the business be "given credit" by putting their name all over the place. But then I see ReiserFS doing just that: last time I formatted a ReiserFS partition, I got a list of all the companies that contributed money to the project. Don't get me wrong, ReiserFS is great, but I don't care to see a bunch of ads in my software. Imagine if every time you ran ls you got some companies name listed along with your directory listing.

Free software is not about egos, it is about keeping software free. Forcing something like this through licensing makes the software non-free. Want the credits? Look at the source code or the documentation!!!

Yes, but

legislating developers' name on a screensaver leaves a bad taste in the mouth, honestly. If I had written any significant F/OSS, I would not feel nearly as good about knowing that the license was forcing my name to be displayed on the screen. I would feel nice if someone voluntarily put it up, sure.

Marketers would not want to "un-necessarily'" give credit. Agreed. Not every company selling (services for) open-source code might be doing it for this reason, though.

I can think of two more reasons: (a) they genuinely think that they are reducing information confusing to the (target) user; that their graphic is good; (b) they did not realize that the developers are feeling they are not getting enough credit.

There is merit in the idea that credit to people who write FOSS could be more prominent. There is also a gentler way to do this, IMHO. Like, "Hey Debian dudes! Good work on that release. BTW, my wishlist for the next one is a screensaver that would display names of authors who wrote the packages I installed. Here's a graphic for the background, and here's how I think one could go about it...".

If enough people support this idea and implement it, then the need to enforce it will not be needed. If some notable exception exists, one could consider license as a way to enforce it.

Credit

Post continued below following legal credits...

----------
This post copyright 2003 by http://slashdot.org/~anonymous-coward

All rights reserved.

Typing done by anonymous coward

Browser made by contributers to the mozilla project: (see bottom of this message for a full list)

OS made by contributers to the Linux kernel and GNU software, part of the GNU/Linux operating system.

OS development assisted by Redhat Corporation

Browser contributers:

A
Rut Kristin Aanestad, Matti Aarnio, Jason Ackley, Carl Adams, Tobias Adamson, Christopher A. Aillon, Juan Pablo Alcaraz, Sam Allen, Warwick Allison, Matitiahu Allouche, A. Ambrose, Nicholas Ambrose, Andrew Anderson, Mark Anderson, Ryota Ando, Mike Ang, Hiroshi Annaka, Peter Annema, Edwin Aoki, Vidur Apparao, Carlos Araya, Koichi Ariyoshi, Kevin Arnold, Akhil Arora, Marc Attinasi
B
Ninoschka Baca, Ariel Backenroth, Ryan Bacon, Rodrigo Bado, Stuart Ballard, Ralf Baechle, Bradley Baetz, Péter Bajusz, Jeffrey W. Baker, Jerry Baker, Kirk Baker, Mitchell Baker, Jay Ball, John Bandhauer, David Baron, Ricardo Batista, German Bauer, Michael Bayne, Patrick Beard, Glen Beasley, Nick Beaudrot, Nicholas Bebout, Adam Becevello, Neal Bedard, Christine Begle, Stephen Beitzel, Artem Belevich, Ruslan Belkin, Kevin Berkheiser, Juraj Betak, Pete Bevin, Gayatri Bhimaraju, David Bienvenu, Christian Biesinger, Jatin Billimoria, Eric Bina, Marlon Bishop, Colin R. Blake, Jessica Blanco, Joaquin Blas, Christopher Blizzard, Garrett Blythe, Chuck Boatwright, Brian Bober, Travis Bogard, Bozhan Boiadzhiev, Mark Bokil, Nelson Bolyard, Phillip Bond, Chris Booton, Mauro Botelho, Robert E. Boughner, Joey Bowles, Norris Boyd, Kathleen Brade, Justin Bradford, Don Bragg, Ryan Brase, Daniel Bratell, Daniel Brickley, David Brittain, Eric Broadbent, Sarah Broadwell, Tomas Brodsky, Daniel Brooks, Germaine Brown, Jeremy Browne, Erik Bruchez, Ben Bucksch, Leston Buell, Eric Burley, Edward J. Burns, Jonathan Buschmann, Grace Bush, Angela Butler-McDonald, Marc Byrd
C
Jeff Caldwell, Conrad Carlen, Bjorn Carlson, Laurel Carlson, Jan Carpenter, Evan Carter, Andrew Cassin, Ryan Cassin, Sudhakar Chandrasekharan, Gary Chan, Wan-Teh Chang, Milind Changire, Christopher S. Charabaruk, Serge Charapaev, Andrew Chatham, Paul Chek, Ray Chen, Tao Cheng, Alexey Chernyak, Troy Chevalier, Lisa Chiang, Hankin Chick, Sean Chitwood, Joe Chou, Robert Churchill, Ashley Clark, James Clark, Steve Clark, Richard Cohn, Pete Collins, Scott Collins, Don Cone, Alex Converse, Chris Cooper, Catherine Corre, Donnie Cranford, Tim Craycroft, Todd Crowe, Jim Crumley, Crysgem, Nicholas Cull, J. Shane Culpepper, Stacey Curtis
D
Steve Dagley, Denis Daly, Angus Davis, Anthony Davis, Paul Davis, Michael Dayah, Mo DeJong, John Dee, Javi Delgadillo, Tom Dell, Vince DeMarco, Prashant Desale, Crutcher Dunnavant, Harish Dhurvasula, Matthew Dillon, Patrick-James Dionisio, Steve Dobbelstein, Jeremy M. Dolan, Simford Dong, Clayton Donley, Stephen Donner, Thomas Down, Rick Downes, Asa Dotzler, George Drapeau, Chris Dreckman, Bert Driehuis, David Drinan, York Du, Alvin Duan, Micah Dubinko, Jean-FranÃois Ducarroz, Suresh Duddi, Jim Dunn, Jeff Dyer
E
Jason Eager, Rafael Ebron, Sean Echevarria, Brandon Ehle, Brendan Eich, Jan Eldenmalm, Rick Elliott, Steve Elmer, Joseph Elwell, Dawn Endico, Kai Engert, Jean-Jacques Enser, Beth Epperson, Harish Kumar Epuri, Ken Estes, Ramiro Estrugo, Matthias Ettrich, Jim Everingham
F
John Fairhurst, Gilbert Fang, Darin Fisher, David Fisher, Matt Fisher, Greg Fiumara, Werner Fleck, Alec Flett, Bret Ford, Robin Foster, Marc Fraioli, Joe Francis, Andreas Franke, Simon Fraser, Jonathan Freeman, Alan Freier, Noah Friedman, Michael J. Fromberger, Chris Fuchs, Koji Fujimoto, C. Fung, Igor Furlan, Scott Furman, Ryoichi Furukawa
G
Niccolà Gallarati, Jeff Galyan, Bruce Gao, Sean Gao, David Gardiner, Jeff Garzik, Claudius Gayle, Samir Gehani, Jim Gellman, Henrik Gemal, David Gerard, Rick Gessner, John Giannandrea, Bill Gibbons, Ro

Oh please

Reiser has already lost countless users for his software because he started polluting the kernel messages with "a message from his sponsors".

He should be more concerned with the quality of his software, not with his ego problems. Personally, I find this disgusting. If someone wants to know who wrote the software, he can read the README or ask google.

I don't even have the slightest reference in my free software source code that point back to me, I don't even use huge copyright comments in my software like the GNU project generally does, and yet people have offered me jobs and asked me about my software many times. In general, the people who want to know who wrote the software, do.

Those who try to rub it in their face all the time will cheapen free software for everyone. It's like the "I'm so important!1!!" freeware movement from MS-DOS, and I barely remember a single author from all the software that rubbed their copyright messages it in my face all the time. In contrast, I even learned to know several free software authors personally!

Hans, people are losing data with your file system. I know because I did. Twice. Then I looked at your fsck code and it stunk to the high heavens. You should be concerned with that, not with putting your name in the face of more people.
And what would be the next step? To insert a few seconds delay so people have a chance to see your messages better? Puleeze!

That would explain it...

Here, go read:

a fairly unpleasant thread [debian.org] started by Mr. Reiser himself.

He has a point, but surely it doesn't hurt to be slightly less aggressive on these matters. Unless he enjoys being credited as an asshole...

"Linux software" ???

From the article: I propose that we as a community insist that all distros make the default screensaver be one that randomly displays a different detailed credit for one of the authors of Linux software every 60 seconds.

Erm.. Is Python or Perl or Apache or Emacs - "Linux software"? What about FreeBSD or OpenBSD - that's hardly "Linux software"...

I'm surprised to see someone as knowledgeable as Riser make such a blunder - or is it intentional?

No one cares

The users of the software probably won't care and most authors who write software really don't do it for fame or they could just plaster their names all over the software (which I rarely see). Perhaps there is something else motivating people to write software.. for instance.. If I sit down and write a zeroconf enabled server daemon for whatever it's probably because I need it or want to use it. Not for fame, because honestly, I could care less who used the shit so long as it worked for me. The blood, sweat and tears pays off in being able to have zeroconf enabled whatever. If other people can benefit then thats great, if they can help make it better thats another plus and if it helps someone else solve a problem in shorter time or makes their life easier then that's gold right there. Usually you get dumps of email from people thanking you for something you just wanted yourself.. It's great.. You get bored? Feel like moving on?? People who were helping with code tend to take up the slack and so the cycle continues.

If people want to know who wrote the software they'll just look it up. I mean in GUI software there is an "About" dialog that exists solely for info such as stuff in cli utils at the start of the program you can put name of author and email address as most other people do. Or through it into a --help argc or something.

Also the idea of having someones name plastered all over your personal computer doesn't make it feel that personal anymore. A user will just begin to tune the shit out, and if you write shit like BIND or BitchX etc you catch enough flack.

Control or free software.

I don't remember who said it on the Debian mailing list, but the sentiment was right:

You can either have control, or you can write free software.

Period.

No!

RMS has a detailed analysis [gnu.org] of why the BSD advertising clause was a very bad idea in practice.

Speaking for myself, I certainly wouldn't want to slap such a clause to anything I wrote. First, I think the egoboo factor is totally overstated. For instance, I wrote a small vocab building app called gretools [sourceforge.net]. I wrote it to scratch a personal itch: to help me with my gre preparation. Ego satisfaction had nothing to do with it. I released it only as an afterthought. Second, what's the point of having J. Random user being being forced to see your name? If you want to build a reputation as a programmer, you would want to build up that reputation with other programmers, which is what you get currenty because your name is in the source. In suspect, most users could consider it as unwanted ads/annoyance. We're trying to get people to use OSS by removing annoyances (like popup blocking), introducing our own forms of annoyance is self defeating. Third, Reiser specifically wants political statements irremovable and visible to users. This is bad. Being free means creating software without trying to impose your idealogy on others. There are practical problems too. You are unnecessarily limiting your user base. If, for instance, your political message included praise for the Falun Gong, it could well lead to any distro that includes your package being banned in the PRC, because you made your statement irremovable. I wonder how many programmers would choose to adopt such a license. Fourth, OSS companies are trying hard to stay afloat and make some money. The better these companies survive, the better your chances of becoming/staying gainfully employed coding Free software. Give them a chance. Don't view them as capitalist evil and impede them from establishing a brand.

That's just my opinion. You are free to pick your license.

I am so sick...

I'm so sick of people trying to cram ads down my throat just because they feel they can get away with it.

Whether it's pop-up ads, spam, TV inset-credit ads, junk mail, telemarketing, ATM fees, TV channel logos, billboards, etc. The long and annoying list goes on and on and keeps growing.

More and more, I'm getting pissed off about the multitude of intrusions on my time and attention. If I cared about whether brand A was better than brand B, i'd look into it myself, otherwise it's just an annoyance to be so informed.

If anyone is particularly interested, or if the software is remarkable in some way, i.e. small, useful, or innovative, then people will find out who's responsible for authoring that piece of work if they care.

But if they don't, then they don't want to endure YET ANOTHER GOD-DAMNED AD.

If the software authors want credit for their work, that's fine, I don't begrudge them that. I'm a software author myself. In fact, I co-wrote one of the most popular ray-tracing programs out there, and my name is on the list of contributors.

The actual software never had my name in it, just in the docs, but people knew me, and had no problem finding out who I was and how to get a hold of me for questions and advice.

I still can list the software on my resume, if I feel that it's relevant to the position I'm seeking. When I do, most people recognise or have heard of it. The fame is still there waiting, bottled up until needed :)

Anyhow, without being overbearingly egotistical, I managed to get and enjoy my 15 minutes of fame without pissing anyone off and without cramming my name down everyone's throat.

my POV

I personally think this is silly really, and I have one piece of OSS under my belt. I do use a splash screen however it is easily turned off and all it does is show the product name, no different than Mozilla's splash screen. Credits about me or any other contributers are contained in the respectable 'About" screen of my application.

Personally I feel credit is given to me in various ways.

1. Downloads counts stay fairly consistent and gradually seem to be rising.
2. Occasional email saying that they like it or even better sometimes coupled witha request for new feature or bug.
3. Simply doing a google of my project shows sites all over the place.

I figure people who give me credit on their own free will, by performing their own reviews and such good or bad, that certainly helps me to make better software and that is all i really want to do anyhow. It is diifcult enough to write something unique and useful these days and on top of that stand out in the mix of commerical apps. So people who have contributed to the linux kernal have obivous unspoken credit that they know companies like RedHat are using thier work, likewise with mozilla developers one being funded by AOL to some extent as wellas being used in AOL's software, to me that is credit and prestige that is pretty rare for most of the OSS projects out there.

One day I hope to see my stuff being reused elsewhere, and as long as they just say it somewhere that i helped out, I couldn't ask for more.

Should licenses protect credits?

Hans has done an enormous amount of really high-quality work and deserves fair compensation and recognition for it. He's got every right to have his code display all the credits that he sees fit.

On the other hand, the moment you say that these credits cannot be removed (or suppressed from being displayed by default) then you no longer have a fully free license. That's what the problem was with the old BSD license with the advertising clause (that used to make BSD code incompatible with the GPL until that was removed), and that's the same problem with invarient sections in the GNU Free Documentation License that caused such a stink recently. The GPL doesn't allow any additional restrictions either, and since Hans' code is available under the GPL, the best he can do is ask that people are respectful of the credits. There's no legal recourse if they aren't (other than maybe to get mad, and quit GPL'ing future versions). This leads to the question -- maybe there should be a new free software license that attempts to protect author credits while remaining otherwise free?

That said, I'd have to say that anyone who would remove credits from free software simply because the license doesn't (or can't) prohibit it is being a rude parasite. A good member of the community has more respect for the contributions of others.

Adobe Photoshop

Nobody's brought up the Photoshop splash screen - which lists quite a number of the developers, but in a very tasteful manner. I remember it because the first time I saw it, I thought to myself, "Cool, a lot of Indians were involved in this."

I think a good way to credit a large number of developers, is to make a splash screen with the bottom quarter scrolling the names of authors/contributors. The user would simply have to click to proceed. That's unobtrusive and might even generate some interest in the user - who might one day stop and read the whole list.

Or perhaps instead of requiring a click, have the splash screen time out after a few seconds, but put a button on it labeled "click here for the credits!" - again unobtrusive.

But that still doesn't take care of stuff that doesn't have a GUI - like ReiserFS.

2 points

One, I'm currently in the process of re-reading "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" by ESR. In it, he discusses how ego boosting is by nature frowned upon. I'm surprised that Hans has felt compelled to take this point up.

Two, as others have pointed out, there are plenty of ways for authors to get recognition in a project.

1. About screens
2. Help screens
3. README files
4. Man pages
5. Web pages
6. Mailing lists
7. Developer forums (sourceforge for example)

Bottom line: grow up Hans.

P.S. random "unknown" hackers

• Larry Wall
• Linus Torvalds
• Richard Stallman
• Andrew Tigdell
• Guido van Rossum

But Hans is right, programmers don't get credit for their work. /remove tongue from cheek

This is not about fair credit

"This is why distros drop the K from all the KDE programs: somebody else is trying to establish a brand name, and that is a market threat they want to cut off."

Have no illusions -- this is what Hans Reiser is worried about, his business. The morality of giving credit-where-due is a red herring.

The debate that sparked this off was Debian removing 20-something lines of crap about sponsors from mkreiserfs. That scares him, because it weakens his power in promoting his sponsors and his brand.

To which I say tough. The GPL was written to ensure that users could make software serve them. If a GPLed program spews unhelpful messages, then anybody has the right to remove them. Incidentally, it's undoubtedly justified in this case, when there's a screenful of rubbish, and the program is regularly used in stressful, recovery situations, potentially on a terminal with no scrollback.

Nobody, I imagine, advocates removing authorship credits entirely, but the GPL does not guarantee free promotion for your company, sponsors, or anything else. If that's what you wanted, you were plain stupid to choose the GPL in the first place.

I agree..

..with those who take the debian line; as someone anonymously posted to newsforge, "Even the FSF's attempt to require credit in the GFDL is being considered non-free by the Debian project"; and as he or she goes on to point out, Debian ARE usually fairly thorough on principled issues like this. The point, to my mind, of FREE software is that it's free. And whilst the word 'free' has the immediate connutation of lacking monetary compensation, that's not all that the word means. For me, for something to be free requires it not to have certain other obligations attached to it; it goes against my principles - and against the karma of the notion of free software - to tie advertising into freely distributed software in this way. If authors really can't do without this manner of crediting in projects which they've contributed to of their own free will, perhaps they shouldn't have contributed to them for free in the first place?

How many slashdot readers run adware.. and why?.. how long might it be before 'free' software which had advertising in this manner decided that 'trading' adverts with other software authors would increase their user base? Really, it wouldn't take very much bending of the rules before free software looked like free websites. And do we really want geocities on our desktops?