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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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