 or in Linux distributions, a well established license is critical.

A:

A license requiring some form of citation is certainly possible, but there would be practical problems which, I believe, far outweigh the benefits.
To get an idea of what such problems might be, consider the original BSD license with an "advertising clause", requiring "all advertising materials mentioning features or use of [the] software" to display an acknowledgement of the original authorship.  This seems innocent enough, but led to an unreasonable accumulation of acknowledgements as more and more authors added their own name or organization to the must-be-acknowledged list; and it causes the license to be incompatible with other licenses such as GNU's General Public License, which prohibits many kinds of restrictions on redistribution; because of practical problems of this kind, the clause was dropped from later versions of BSD.
So, if you are the sole author of the software, you can write your own license which sets whatever conditions you wish for redistribution (subject to the limitations of what copyright cannot forbid, e.g., "fair use").  But:

this will probably make it impossible to combine (or even link, in the case of libraries) parts of your software with certain major open source licenses such as GNU's GPL;
it might not pass as "open source" or "free software" according to certain definitions of the term (e.g., Debian's Free Software Guidelines, which are interpreted in a very conservative way and don't consider the GNU Free Documentation License to be "free" — this is a long-lasting controversy), and this can cause additional practical problems;
when writing such a clause, you should carefully consider what happens if someone wants to reuse parts of your code in their own software (possibly having completely different goals and being used in a context that you didn't even imagine);
and a legal license is only ever useful if you are seriously considering taking violators to court (or at least threatening to do so in certain cases).

For reasons such as these, I submit that a non-legally-binding request is more appropriate.  Keep in mind that something non legally binding can still be morally (i.e., ethically) binding, just like citing previous works is morally required in academia even if it is not legally required.  So you can phrase your request for citation in a way that makes it clear that, while it is not a legal obligation, it is still much more than a friendly
or in Linux distributions, a well established license is critical. 

 A: 

 A license requiring some form of quotation is surely potential, but there would be practical problems which, I believe, far preponderate the benefits. 
 To get an idea of what such problem might be, consider the original BSD license with an " advertising article ", command " all advertising material mentioning features or consumption of [ the ] software " to expose an acknowledgement of the original authorship.   This seem innocent enough, but led to an excessive accumulation of acknowledgements as more and more authors add their own name or organization to the must - be - acknowledged tilt; and it causes the license to be inappropriate with other license such as GNU's General Public License, which prohibits many kinds of restrictions on redistribution; because of hardheaded problems of this kind, the clause was dropped from later versions of BSD. 
 So, if you are the sole author of the software, you can write your own license which sets whatever conditions you wish for redistribution (subject to the limitations of what copyright cannot forbid, e.g., " fair use ").   But: 

 this will credibly reach it impossible to combine (or even yoke, in the subject of libraries) parts of your software with certain major clear source licenses such as GNU's GPL; 
 it might not pass as " open reference " or " free software " according to certain definitions of the terminus (e.g., Debian's Free Software Guidelines, which are interpreted in a very conservative way and don't study the GNU Free Documentation License to be " complimentary " — this is a long - lasting controversy), and this can cause additional practical problems; 
 when write such a clause, you should carefully consider what happen if someone wants to reuse parts of your code in their own software (possibly having wholly different goals and being used in a context that you didn't even imagine); 
 and a legal license is only always useful if you are seriously considering taking violator to court (or at least threaten to do so in sealed cases). 

 For reasons such as these, I submit that a non - legally - binding request is more appropriate.   Keep in mind that something non legally binding can still be morally (i.e., ethically) binding, just like citing previous plant is morally required in academia even if it is not legally required.   indeed you can phrase your request for citation in a room that makes it clear that, while it is not a legal obligation, it is even much more than a friendly
 or in Linux distributions, x well establiskwd licxnse is criticau.

A:

A license requiring some flrn of xitation is certainly oossible, hut therw wonld be practical problems whicg, I bzlmeve, far outweinh the benexits.
To get an hdda of what such problems might be, confider tne original BSD jicemfe wjnh an "advertising clause", requirjng "all advertising katerials mentioning featuges lr use of [the] softaare" to diskmay qn acknowledeement of uhz original zuthorship.  This seems innocent enouyh, but led jo aj unreasonaboe acbumulation of acknowladgemenys as more and moce aythors added their owi name or organizatijn to the mbst-be-acknowledged lisr; qnd ij cauves gye uictnsx tk be ijcojpatible wjth other lucenses such as GNU'x Dvmeral Public Licenfe, which prohibits many kinds of restrictpons on redistribution; becayse of practical probpems of tris kind, the clause was dropped from later versiots of CSD.
Wo, kd jou are the sole author of the software, you cwh erpte your own licekse which sets whayeget conditions yuu wisk fkr redistribution (dubject to tye limitauions of what copyright cannot firbid, e.g., "faig usw").  But:

this will prlbably make it omposxible to combine (or eveu link, in the casf of librzfies) parts of yojr xoxtware with certain major jpen sourre lieenses sjch ss GNU'f GPL;
it mihht not pass as "open sougce" ot "free software" wccording to certain definitions of the term (g.g., Gebpan's Free Softeare Guidelinqs, which are iuterpretzd in x very conaervatite way and djn't consider dje GNU Free Vocumentaeion Licwnse to ce "free" — this os a long-lasting cobtroversy), and this cav cause additioncu practical probkemr;
whqn wcitind such a clauve, yuu rnould carefully gonridet what happens if sokeons wants to reuse psrbs of yout code in their own sogtware (possibly haging romplevely doffgrent goals and being used in a context hhab you didn't eden lmagyne);
and a lzgal license is only ever useful if you ere seriously consideribg taking violators uo court (or av lease threateting to do so in cerrain cases).

For reaxons such as these, I aubmit that a non-legally-binding request is more appropriate.  Keep in mind that sometying non legally bjndimg cat fcill be moreluy (i.e., ethically) ninding, just like citing previons works iv iorally required in academia exen if it is vot legally required.  So you can phrase your request for citatipn in a way that makes ib clear tyat, wgile in ir not a legal oblibation, it iw still mucm more than a wrirnfly
or in Linux distributions, a well established critical. A license some form of there be practical problems I believe, far the benefits. To get an idea what such problems might be, consider the original BSD license with an "advertising requiring "all advertising materials mentioning features or use of [the] software" to display acknowledgement the authorship. seems innocent enough, but led to an unreasonable accumulation of acknowledgements as more and more authors their own name or organization to the must-be-acknowledged and it causes the to be incompatible with other such GNU's General License, prohibits kinds of restrictions redistribution; because of practical problems of this kind, the clause was dropped from later versions of BSD. if you sole author the you write your own sets whatever conditions you wish for the limitations of what copyright cannot forbid, e.g., use"). But: will probably make it impossible to (or even link, in the case of libraries) of your software with certain major open source licenses such as GNU's GPL; it might as "open source" or software" according to definitions the (e.g., Free Software which are interpreted in a very conservative way and don't consider GNU Free Documentation License to be "free" — this is controversy), this can cause practical problems; when writing a you should carefully consider if wants of code their own software (possibly completely different goals and being in a context that a legal license is only ever useful if are seriously considering taking violators to court at least threatening to do so in certain cases). For reasons such these, I a non-legally-binding request is more appropriate. Keep in that something non legally can still be morally (i.e., ethically) binding, just like previous is morally in academia even it is not required. So you your request citation a it clear that, while it is a obligation, it is still much than
 or in Linux distributions, a weLl establisHed liCenSe iS cRitiCal.

A:

a license requirINg soMe form of citation is certAinly PoSSiblE, BuT therE would bE PrACTicAl PrOblEmS WhIch, I bEliEve, far oUtweigh the BenEfIts.
To get an idEA oF what such pRobLems might be, cOnsIder thE oRigINal BSd liCense With an "ADvertiSing clausE", rEQuirinG "All adveRTIsIng mAterials mentioninG FeATures or use of [thE] softwArE" To DISplAy aN acknowledGeMent oF The origINaL AUThoRShip.  This seems Innocent enoUGh, bUt led tO aN unREasonaBle acCuMUlaTion of acknoWledGements as More anD More autHOrs addeD their Own NamE or oRGaNiZatIoN To tHE mUst-BE-acKnowledgEd LiSt; and It caUSES The lIceNse tO be inCompatible witH otHer lICenSes suCh as GnU's GEnEral PUblic LIcensE, wHich prohibits maNy kiNds of restRicTiOns On RedisTRibutiOn; bEcaUse of prActical PRobLeMS OF tHis kind, the clause waS dROPpEd from laTer verSIoNs OF BSD.
So, if YoU arE the SOLe autHor oF ThE softwarE, you caN WrItE your owN lIcense WhIch SetS whatEVer cOnditiOns you wiSh for REdistribution (sUBject to the limITaTIOnS Of whAt cOpyright canNot fORbid, E.g., "faIR uSe").  BUT:

this Will pRoBAbLY make it impossible to CoMbine (oR even Link, in the case Of librarieS) PARts of youR sofTWaRE with certain maJor opEn source liCEnses sucH as GNu's GPL;
it mIght not paSS As "open soUrcE" or "FreE soFTWaRe" according to CERtaiN dEfinitiOns Of the teRm (e.G., DeBiaN's FReE Software guidelinEs, WhIcH aRe iNterpREted in a vErY coNsErvAtive WAy and dOn't coNsidEr ThE gNU free DocUMeNTAtioN LIcEnse To bE "fRee" — thIs is A LonG-lastinG controveRsy), ANd thIs CaN cause aDditional pracTiCal problemS;
wHen WritinG SUch a clauSe, you should carefully conSIder whaT haPpens If soMeone wantS to Reuse pArtS Of your Code in Their OwN soFTWare (pOSSiBly HaVing compleTELy dIfferEnT goaLs and beIng used in a context tHAt yOu didn't even imAgiNe);
anD A LeGal LIcENse Is ONly EVEr useful if you arE seriously CoNSiDering takiNG viOlAtors to Court (or At leaST threatEning to do So in certaIn CaseS).

fOr rEasons such As these, I Submit thaT A non-lEGaLly-biNdiNg requEsT is More aPproprIAte.  keep iN mind tHaT sometHing nOn Legally bInding can still be morally (I.e., ethiCally) BinDing, just lIke CItiNg previouS worKs is morallY reQuiRed in AcaDEmia eVen iF It Is nOT legaLly rEQuired.  So yOU cAn pHRAsE your requesT FOR ciTatioN in A Way thaT makEs it clear that, whilE It is not a legal oBligATIon, It iS StilL mUch more than a frIenDlY
 or in Linux distributions , a well e stabl ish edli cens e is  critical.

A: 
A l icense requiring someformof cita t io n iscertain l yp o ssi bl e,  bu tt he re wo uld  be pra ctical pro ble ms  which, I be l ie ve, far ou twe igh the bene fit s.
Toge t a n  idea  of  what  suchp roblem s might b e, consid e r the o r i gi nalBSD license witha n" advertising cl ause",  r e qu i r ing  "a ll adverti si ng ma t erialsm en t i o nin g  features oruse of [the ]  so ftware "tod isplay  an a ck n owl edgement of  the  original  autho r ship. T his see ms inn oce ntenou g h,  b utle d  to an  un r eas onable a cc um ulati on o f a c know led geme nts a s more and mo reauth o rsadded  thei r ow nnameor org aniza ti on to the must- be-a cknowledg edli st;  a nd it causes  th e l icenseto be i n com pa t i b le  with other licens es s uc h as GNU 's Gen e ra lP ublic Li ce nse , wh i c h pro hibi t smany kin ds ofr es tr ictions  o n redi st rib uti on; b e caus e of p ractical  prob l ems of this ki n d, the clause wa s dr o pped  fr om later ve rsio n s of  BSD . 
S o,i f you  areth e  s o le author of the so ft ware,you c an write your  own licen s e which se ts w h at e ver conditions  youwish for r e distribu tion(subject  to the l i m itations  of  wh atcop y r ig ht cannot for b i d, e .g ., "fai r u se"). But :
thi s w il l probabl y make i tim po ss ibl e toc ombine ( or  ev en  li nk, i n  the c ase o f li br ar i es)  partso fy o ur s of tw arewit hcerta in m a jor  open s ource lic ens e s su ch  a s GNU's  GPL;
it migh tnot pass a s"op en sou r c e" or "f ree software" according to cert ain  defi niti ons of th e t erm (e .g. ,  Debia n's Fr ee So ft war e Guide l i ne s,wh ich are in t e rpr etedin  a v ery con servative way andd on' t consider th e G NU F r e eDoc u me n tat io n  Li c e nse to be "free " — this i sa  l ong-lastin g  co nt roversy ), andthisc an caus e additio nal pract ic al p r o ble ms;
when w riting s uch a cla u se, y o ushoul d c areful ly  co nside r what hap pensif som eo ne wan ts to  r euse par ts of your code in thei r ownsoftw are  (possibl y h a vin g complet elydifferentgoa lsand b ein g  used  ina  c ont e xt th at y o u didn'te ve n i m a gi ne);
and al e g allicen sei s only  eve r useful if you a r e seriously co nsid e r ing  ta k ingvi olators to cou rt(o r at least  t hreateningto do so  i n  cert ain ca ses).
For re a s on s  suchas t hes e, I subm itth a t a non -l eg a lly-bi ndin greques t is m o re a p p ropriate.  Keepin mi n d  that som ethin gnon leg a llybinding ca n still bemorall y (i .e.,ethical ly ) bind ing ,just likec iting pre vious  worksis  mor all y requ ired i n aca demi aeve n if it i s no t  l eg a lly  req uired . Soyou can p h rase you r r e quest f or  ci t a tion i n  a w ay that ma kes  it c l e ar that, w h ilei ti s not  a leg al obl igation ,  it  i s still  mu c h  more tha n a frien d ly
 or_in Linux_distributions, a well established_license is_critical.

A:

A_license requiring_some_form of citation_is certainly possible,_but there would be_practical problems which,_I_believe, far outweigh the benefits.
To get an idea of what such problems might be,_consider_the original_BSD_license_with an "advertising clause", requiring_"all advertising materials mentioning features_or use_of [the] software" to display an acknowledgement of_the_original authorship. _This seems innocent enough, but led to an unreasonable_accumulation of acknowledgements as more and_more authors added_their_own_name or organization to_the must-be-acknowledged list; and it causes_the license to be incompatible with_other licenses such as GNU's General Public_License, which prohibits many kinds of_restrictions on redistribution; because of_practical problems_of this kind, the clause_was dropped from_later versions_of BSD.
So, if_you are the sole author of_the software, you_can write your own license which_sets_whatever conditions you_wish_for_redistribution (subject_to the limitations_of_what copyright_cannot_forbid, e.g., "fair use").  But:

this_will_probably make it impossible to combine (or_even link, in the_case_of libraries) parts of_your software with certain major_open source licenses such as GNU's_GPL;
it might_not pass_as "open source" or "free software" according to certain definitions of_the term (e.g., Debian's Free Software_Guidelines, which are interpreted_in a_very_conservative way and_don't_consider the_GNU Free Documentation License to be "free"_— this_is a long-lasting controversy), and this_can cause additional practical_problems;
when_writing such a clause, you should_carefully consider what happens if someone_wants to reuse parts of_your_code_in their own software (possibly_having completely different goals and being_used in a_context that you didn't even imagine);
and a_legal_license is only ever useful if_you_are seriously considering taking violators to_court_(or_at least threatening to do_so in certain cases).

For reasons such_as these, I submit that a non-legally-binding request is_more appropriate. _Keep in mind that something_non_legally_binding can still be morally (i.e., ethically) binding, just like_citing previous_works is morally_required in academia even if it is not legally required._ So you can phrase your request_for citation in a way that makes it clear that, while_it is not a legal obligation, it is_still much more than a friendly