testing kit conformance as a condition of distribution

[John Cowan]

Brian Behlendorf scripsit:

> What I need are solid sound-bite-y easy-to-explain but non-dogmatic
> arguments as to why such a conformance requirement is not compatible
> with the way Open Source works (putting aside compatibility with any
> particular licenses).

Why, it's very simple.  Suppose I have written from scratch a
J2EE-compatible implementation (open source or proprietary, it makes no
difference), and I have gotten Sun to certify it.  Then not even I (never
mind anyone else) can create and publish a derivative work of that code
which is *not* J2EE compatible.  (Derivative works can be made by the
author as well as by a licensed third party.)

Clearly I ought to be able to do this, provided I don't step on any of
Sun's trademarks or claim certification for code that doesn't have it; and
what I can do myself, I ought to be able to license a third party to do.
Instead, Sun is inviting me to contract away my authorial right to reuse
my own code (except in undistributed works) except as Sun says I can.

The most that Sun ought to reasonably require is that its trademarks
and certification marks not be applied to derivative works without a
separate license from Sun.  This is very different from the case
of being allowed to reuse Sun's own code, where they may put in place
any restrictions they please.

-- 
Is a chair finely made tragic or comic? Is the          John Cowan
portrait of Mona Lisa good if I desire to see           cowan at ccil.org
it? Is the bust of Sir Philip Crampton lyrical,         www.ccil.org/~cowan
epical or dramatic?  If a man hacking in fury           www.reutershealth.com
at a block of wood make there an image of a cow,
is that image a work of art? If not, why not?               --Stephen Dedalus
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3