That is just you. Many who create open-source software and/or hardware do want to see attribution. While it is the right thing to do it is also important to adhere to the license under which it is distributed.
A general request (not specifically towards the author): If you release a project under open source license, please be specific about what kind of attribution you would like to get when your project is used within a product.
Giving credit would be so much easier if one could use for example Maven or npm to automatically create a list of attributions that could be then formatted and included in the "About page".
Basically all open source licenses have a clause requiring attribution. If people copy your work and remove your name and claim it's their own, you can DMCA or sue them just the same whether you made it open source or not.
I think that people don't seem to understand that most open source licences don't require attribution. If you have released your code according to a licence, what right do you have to complain that people are using that code in accordance with that licence?
In this case though, it looks like Obvious did set out to attribute the original GAN author and Christie's have omitted that.
Even apart from copyright aspect, it would be nice if we as programmers would improve our attitude towards attribution. If researchers can cite the work that has influenced theirs without legal threats than so can we.
Proper attribution is actually important though from a licensing standpoint. Contributors publish their patches under the GPL, but they retain the copyright.
If an OSS project ever needs to change the license they will need to seek permission from each contributor. You can't relicense a project if you have some code that's submitted without proper attribution to the actual copyright holder.
I'm actually a little disturbed that attribution is removed. What's the point then? People generally don't write software for free so that they can't even get basic credit.
Attribution does prevent the case where someone else takes your code, relicenses it under their name with a different license, and effectively locks you out of the house you built. (I know, it's hard to believe anyone would be so dishonest and petty, isn't it? That's where the complexity comes from.)
I am not a lawyer, however I've normally seen the attribution included in the About / informational display of a program. It's entirely about giving credit that something was used and who contributed to that thing (entirely, credit where due).
I do tend to mention the major projects I build on in my credits, as well as actually respecting attribution licenses when I make my little forks. The effort is minimal, it's all good karma. If everyone did this, we'd probably have fewer "openssl" or "pgp" situations, as the people doing the work would get actual visibility through the chain.
Sharing is distinct from attribution. Are you okay with your code being reused without attributing it to you? If yes, then why have you published it under licenses that explicitly require such attribution?
That’s why attribution requirements are stupid. Of course, as a matter of politeness and ethics, one ought to acknowledge the work of others you build upon. But elevating it from an informal principle to a formal legal requirement puts people in the unpleasant position of having either to deal with endless and ever-changing attribution bureaucracy, or just ignore it all and hope nobody ever complains (or sues). Zero attribution licenses don’t do that to people.
If you look in the settings of applications like Pages you'll see a section named Contributions, they list opensource projects they use even for those whose license does not require to be mentioned.
While I'm agree with you that credits must be given where it is due, stretching it to the fact that this behavior would be in their DNA seems not backed up by facts in my point of view.
Obviously it matters to the people who wrote licenses that explicitly require credit and to the people that chose to release their code under such licenses.
reply