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

Re: Is javacc DFSG compliant?

> Ken Arromdee <arromdee@rahul.net> writes:
> > Consider this hypothetical: I want to use the software in a nuclear power
> > plant.  My lawyers advise me not to make the acknowledgement, because doing
> > so might make it harder to later take Sun to court if I have to.  I refuse
> > to acknowledge that the software is not intended for nuclear plants, but I
> > copy and use the software anyway.  Am I now in violation of the license?

On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 12:57:57PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Your lawyers are insane.


> It's illegal to use this software in nuclear power plants.

That's for a judge to determine.

It's illegal in the context of copyrights to make copies for
use in nuclear power plants (which conflicts with the fields
of endeavor part of the DFSG).  But, for example, if a copy
is used in my cell phone, and I use my cell phone in a nuclear
power plant, I doubt very much that anything illegal has
happened -- at the time that copy was made, it wasn't 
specifically for the purpose of using it in a nuclear power

Note also that receipt of software doesn't require any copyright
privileges.  It's people making copies (such as developers) where
copyright matters.

> Yes, I suppose those laws could change.

What laws?

> But the fact that it isn't designed for use in a nuke is *true*.

It's not designed for use on a cucumber farm, either.  Does that make
it illegal to use on a cuke?

Let's say someone was seriously intending to use this software in a
nuclear power plant.  Let's say that Sun wouldn't provide acceptable
alternate licensing.  Let's also say that the people involved in this
plan are responsible and either [a] are using it in contexts where
failure of the system isn't a critical issue, or [b] are first having
a team of programmers go over the relevant code to certify that it will
perform as needed.

> I don't see any fee or other non-free requirement in silent and private
> acknowledgement of true facts.

I don't either.

> > I know that "you must acknowledge that" doesn't mean you need to mail Sun a
> > written statement bearing an acknowledgement, but I don't think that makes a
> > difference.  Would a license "you must acknowledge that Jesus is
> > Lord" be free?
> That's not provably true.  Sun, being the designer of the software,
> can make unambiguously true statements about the design.

Which shouldn't have anything to do with how the software is used,
unless the software is non-free.


Reply to: