[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Fw: [argouml-dev] Licence issue (debian in particular)

Many thanks to everybody for  your responses. As I understand, I'll have
to remove this  code from argouml or move argouml  to non-free... or ask
Sun to change their license ;-)

Am I right?

Joel Baker <fenton@debian.org> wrote:
> On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 07:44:33PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Scripsit Joel Baker <fenton@debian.org>
> > 
> > > Or, in other words, it may well fail DFSG #6, because the upstream
> > > is very likely to be completely unwilling to open themselves up to
> > > the lawsuits  that could result  from a critical failure  of their
> > > software  when used in  a safety-critical  system where  a failure
> > > could wreak havoc over a large geographical area.
> > 
> > But they  could protect themselves perfectly well  without trying to
> > use their license to  *forbid* use in saftety-critical systems. What
> > they're saying here is not just "it'll not be our fault if something
> > happens" - they're  saying "you will be in  violation of the license
> > if you use it for X, so you can except to be sued".
> Actually, that's arguable. The  reason the boilerplate appeared in the
> first  place,  in  commercial   software,  was  the  exceedingly  high
> potential  liability if  a court  found that  you were  not,  in fact,
> allowed  to   disclaim  responsiblity,  and  someone  used   it  in  a
> safety/life-critical system.
> Remember,  just because  it  says "No  warranty,  express or  implied"
> doesn't make  it true,  in some places.  Conversely, I'm  not actually
> saying it should  be allowed as an exception; it  was mostly trying to
> explain why Sun probably has that clause, and why they might refuse to
> remove it (we  can only hope they'll remove it for  an attempt at free
> licensing,   entirely  *because*   the  liability   issues   could  be
> significantly different, and merely requiring a positive understanding
> that  the software  is  not  meant for  those  uses could  potentially
> suffice).
> > > (Similar notices are often  seen for life-critical systems such as
> > > medical, military support, or other similar stuff).
> > 
> > To the  best of my  knowledge we don't  have any such (==  trying to
> > restrict  use  rather  than  merely disclaim  warranty)  notices  in
> > Debian. If we have, bugs should be filed against those packages.
> See above; I wasn't trying to  imply it should be exempted, as-is, and
> I'm sorry if  it came across that way. It was  mostly meant as context
> (especially  for folks  who've never  seen the  requirements  list for
> nuclear-safe stuff). Though I think removing the word 'licensed' there
> would probably  make it pass,  since it doesn't explicitly  forbid you
> from doing  it, only require that  you grasp that it  wasn't built for
> that (and, as  such, shifts the liability from  them, for allowing it,
> to  you,   for  being   stupid  enough  to   have  not   followed  the
> requirements).

-- Arnaud Vandyck, STE fi, ULg

Attachment: pgp5xZfSu_fT1.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: