compatibility and the OSD

Alex Rousskov rousskov at
Thu Sep 23 18:13:59 UTC 2004

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004, Rick Moen wrote:

> You know, in the extremely unlikely event that anyone ever _uses_ 
> AAL and creates an executable that produces no output (embedded 
> system, etc.), I'll bet just running it such that it would have 
> produced a splash screen if there _had_ been an output screen would 
> suffice to avoid the Wrath of Judge.

The amount of RAM required to add a "would have produced" 
functionality may be prohibitively large to reuse pieces of AAL code 
in embedded software (think nanonetworks, for example).

> Is this really worth spending time on?  Or can we just all agree 
> that it's an obnoxious, non-starter licence and move on?

Is there a process for de-certifying an OSI-certified license. Can an 
OSI-certified license lose its certification?

If not, it may be a good idea to at least warn OSI web site readers 
that AAL may actually violate OSD terms and must not be used in any 
examples. Otherwise, I am sure these long arguments will re-appear, 
especially as new technologies make it more difficult to stay 
technology neutral.


More information about the License-discuss mailing list