compatibility and the OSD

Ernest Prabhakar prabhaka at
Wed Sep 22 23:09:16 UTC 2004

On Sep 22, 2004, at 3:04 PM, Bob Scheifler wrote:

>> Oops, I have to make sure that I preserve some sort of attribution 
>> notice.I have to be a little creative, but I find some way to satisfy 
>> that requirement and still release my derivative work.
> The AAL requirement isn't just to include a notice in the distribution;
> the program must display it when run. That seems to me to effectively
> preclude distribution of binary derivative works that are intended for
> use in embedded systems where "there is no there there" to display such
> an attribution.

I interpreted the AAL loosely enough to not run afoul of OSD #10 on 
technology dependance.   So, if I'm an embedded program, I presume I 
can satisfy the requirement by writing out to a log file, or tossing an 
optional comment string in the header of a packet or something.  
Alternatively, I could distribute my embedded driver under the AAL and 
require the GUI configuration program to display that banner.

My vague recollection is that the AAL was just vague enough to squeak 
by on this issue, but that we disallowed other licenses which had more 
explicit requirements.  The larger point is that the AAL is probably 
right on the line as far as acceptability, but your license goes over 
that line.

If anything, you're making a case that we shouldn't have approved the 
AAL, but not giving us any reason to approve your license.   Since this 
is purportedly a hypothetical discussion, why bother?

Russell, do you have the link to the original discussion of the AAL? 
Because I suspect this very issue came up.  Does anyone else remember?

-- Ernie P.
(who worries that he may be proving the point about "few thoughtful 
responses" :-)

More information about the License-discuss mailing list