Re: Is javacc DFSG compliant?
On Wed, 2004-10-13 at 11:31 -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> That occurance of "licensed" doesn't refer to the copyright license.
> It refers to DOE licensing of technology for operating nuclear
> facilities. It's perfectly Free.
Indeed that probably explains why it was put in to begin with, but its
use in this context only confuses people when they try to make sense of
the license as a whole. Time and again its this particular wording that
caused problems. I don't know if the wording was changed in response to
these complaints but it may have been.
The regulatory guides at nrc.gov (particularly CFR part 50, the power
reactor guide 1.172, and NUREG-0800 chapter 7) can be an interesting
read but they seem to only reinforce the fact that this is an
unnecessary clause to begin with. Anyone getting approval for any
software use in a nuclear facility already has their work cut out for
them, I doubt they would be successful getting approval for random code
taken from the internet. (with or without this clause in its license)
I'm attempting to argue both sides here. I can see why our legal team
wants this statement included but I can also see why its redundant. If
something similar were needed in every software license to discourage
its use in nuclear facilities then perhaps I shouldn't live near the
largest nuclear power plant in the country.