<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">Recently, I have submitted a <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KRQDVI3IpEvaVGW_pJhf_Ha7VzdOItGGxtITpTvsJjI/edit" class="">proposal</a> to the LWG, of a new mechanism for enforcing the license-stipulated attribution requirement (AR). To date I have received no feedback from them, which is why I am asking for opinions about the proposal on this forum.<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">In short, the proposed mechanism calls for requiring the AR violators to cover the time and material expenses, incurred by whoever takes the initiative to bring the violator into compliance. The required compensation can have the form of volunteer work or money, which would be used to reward the people working on rectifying the violations.</div><div class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">As I see it, the attribution requirement was placed into the license for a reason, and the OSMF should <b class="">enforce</b> its compliance*. The volunteer-based mechanism we have in place today is insufficient, as it does not lead to active discovery of violations, nor generally leads to resolutions of the known ones in a timely manner, or at all. I belive my proposal is fair and at the same time provides incentives for people to work on the cases. I do not claim to have considered all aspects that might affect the proposal implementability or desirability, which is why I am looking forward to your comments.</div></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Alexander</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">* AFAIK, only OSMF can legally do so</div></body></html>