Subject: RE: For approval: Open Test License v1.1
From: "Lawrence E. Rosen" <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 22:20:18 -0800

 Thu, 8 Jan 2004 22:20:18 -0800
> : 3. Publication of results from standardized tests contained within
> :    this software (<TESTNAME>, <TESTNAME>) must either strictly
> :    adhere to the execution rules for such tests or be accompanied
> :    by explicit prior written permission of <OWNER>.

You can't place requirements on the ways that downstream licensees can use
their copies or on the types of derivative works they create.  The only
thing you can require that restricts such things is that they use the same
*license* you use. See OSD #3, 9 and 10.  I don't think this license will
float.

We discussed similar things when the OSI board approved Sun's SISSL, and the
SISSL solves this problem of test standardization.  I suggest you take a
closer look at that license before you try to squeeze this Open Test License
through.

/Larry Rosen

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alex Rousskov [mailto:rousskov@measurement-factory.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 9:28 PM
> To: Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
> Cc: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: For approval: Open Test License v1.1
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, 8 Jan 2004, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:
> 
> > The issue I see for the Open Test License v1.1 is with 
> regard to the 
> > provision containing the third condition. This may not be 
> strictly an 
> > OSD problem, but, it is not clear to me how condition three is 
> > triggered.
> 
> The only way to violate condition #3 is to publish one of the 
> <TESTNAME> results in violation of the <TESTNAME> rules  and  
> without OWNER's permission. Said rules will usually include a 
> requirement to use a specific unmodified version of the 
> software for any published <TESTNAME> result.
> 
> > As written, it seems to require a POTENTIAL licensee to 
> obtain written 
> > permission from the owner of the copyright to the original 
> program if 
> > the potential licensee intends to say "my falcon (a 
> derivative work) 
> > past Owner's test by 5 parsecs" if parsecs are not a 
> standardized way 
> > to measure whatever Owner's tools measure.
> 
> If "parsecs test" is not a standardized test (i.e., not one 
> listed in the license as <TESTNAME>), then no permission is needed.
> 
> For example, if SPEC uses Open Test License for its tests, 
> then I can modify SPEC's Web99 test to measure the 
> temperature of the CPU during the test, call the new test 
> HotShots2004 and publish a result without contacting SPEC. 
> One the other hand, I cannot modify Web99 and then publish a 
> "Web99" result without SPEC permission.
> 
> > Is this one way condition 3 might work? Is the intent of 
> condition 3 
> > to retain for the original copyright holder some degree of control 
> > over what licensees say about test results?
> 
> The intent is to prevent users from using standardizes test 
> names to name non-standard tests and their results. Such 
> naming would mislead those who read/use results and may 
> damage OWNER's reputation.
> 
> Non-standard tests include any violation of standard rules, 
> including modification of the software if standard rules 
> require a specific original version to be used.
> 
> It is perfectly fine to use non-standard names for 
> non-standard tests. No permission is needed for that and no 
> standard rules can prohibit that.
> 
> > If the answers are yes, could you provide a specific 
> example of what 
> > you are trying to prevent when you say: "We just do not 
> want users to 
> > fiddle with what is already standardized and frozen." It 
> may be easier 
> > to provide a suggestion on how to fix your clause.
> 
> Does the above example and discussion clarify? Can the 
> wording of clause #3 be improved without adding 10 
> terminology paragraphs to the license?
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Alex.
> 
> > : 3. Publication of results from standardized tests contained within
> > :    this software (<TESTNAME>, <TESTNAME>) must either strictly
> > :    adhere to the execution rules for such tests or be accompanied
> > :    by explicit prior written permission of <OWNER>.
> --
> 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