Subject: Re: testing kit conformance as a condition of distribution
From: Evan Prodromou <>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 02:47:37 -0400
Tue, 29 Jun 2004 02:47:37 -0400
On Tue, 2004-06-29 at 02:08, Brian Behlendorf wrote:

> With respect to the language at the top of:
> and for context:
> 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.

>  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).

So, according to this FAQ:
...Java verification costs $15K/year. I don't think having to pay a
certification fee is really in holding with OSD item #3. That's pretty
pricey just for me to redistribute an unofficial bug-fix patch!

Umm... so... lemme think here, though. How about:

        By allowing non-certified modified versions, we encourage free
        experimentation by the Internet community. Freeing developers to
        be creative will improve quality in the core product and allow
        rapid enhancement of the feature set. By specifying that
        unofficial modified versions lose their certification, we
        prevent confusion about the brand.

In other words: not requiring certification speeds up improvements,
without hurting the brand.



Evan Prodromou <>
Wikitravel (

["application/pgp-signature" not shown]