Brian, I am surprised that Sun is still making this an issue. I thought several of us had already told them that their proposed Notice is flat-out incompatible with open source:
NOTICE FROM SUN MICROSYSTEMS: Any redistributed derivative work of the software licensed hereunder must be compatible and branded with the appropriate compatibility logo specified by Sun and licensed by Sun persuant [sic] to a separate Trademark License required to be executed by you with Sun. Under open source principles, neither Sun nor Apache nor anyone else can impose requirements on the character or content of derivative works of open source software. Sun seeks here to impose such requirements in the name of compatibility and branding. That won't fly. I'm confident no such provision would be found acceptable in an open source license. ASF and its customers must remain free to create compliant or non-compliant derivative works as they, in their sole judgment, decide to do. The only thing that Sun should retain is the right to prevent non-compliant versions from using Sun's certification marks, and this they can do under basic trademark law even without that unacceptable provision. That provision isn't really necessary for Sun, but it sure hurts the freedom to create derivative works. The alternative wording that ASF proposed on your Geronimo download page would work: Any claims of compliance to Java(tm) Technology Specification(s) apply only to the original, unmodified Work. Derivative Works do not inherit compliance and may be subject to third-party restrictions on claims of compliance and use of related trademarks. This is a true statement under trademark law and so saying it isn't really necessary. A simpler way to resolve the open source incompatibility would be simply to remove the offensive provision entirely from the J2EE license. As I recall, nothing in the J2EE license otherwise grants rights to apply Sun's marks on non-compliant software. Sun can still protect its certification marks and trademarks without that provision and Sun loses nothing by deleting it. But if Sun's lawyers insist on making this point about trademark law explicit, perhaps they can devise appropriate wording for an "Exclusions from License" provision that doesn't restrict the freedom to create derivative works. By the way, I like certification marks, including Sun's. I think they help customers to select software that meets important standards. I just don't like it when companies try to force free software to bear certification marks its authors may not want or need. /Larry Lawrence Rosen Rosenlaw & Einschlag, technology law offices (www.rosenlaw.com) General counsel, Open Source Initiative (www.opensource.org) 3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482 707-485-1242 * fax: 707-485-1243 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian Behlendorf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 11:09 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: testing kit conformance as a condition of distribution > > > I know this list is supposed to be about reviewing proposed licenses > rather than speculation, but hopefully you'll at least find this question > more on-topic than most. > > With respect to the language at the top of: > > http://geronimo.apache.org/download.html > > and for context: > > http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]&ms > gNo=52 > > The NOTICE Sun is asking us to post seems, to me, to effectively > constitute an additional term of copyright. Such a term would not seem to > be OSD compliant. Empirically I can argue this easily, as no open source > license has been approved with such a conformance requirement on > derivative works (AFAIK). The Sun Internet Standards Source License comes > close, but it also allows the release of non-conformant works so long as > the full source code to non-conformant works is available. 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). > > Thanks in advance, > > Brian > -- > license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3