Re: Is javacc DFSG compliant?
> > On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 12:57:57PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> >> Your lawyers are insane.
Raul Miller <moth@debian.org> writes:
> > Cite?
On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 01:55:55PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> You're considering using unproven, uncertified software running in a
> JVM to operate an unlicensed nuclear power plant, ...
False.
Either [a] the software is first being certified (possibly being modified
in the process), or [b] it's not being used to operate the plant.
Also, there's no reason to exclude licensed nuclear power plants from
this discussion.
> >> 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).
>
> No, it isn't. It doesn't say you can't do so -- just that you've
> acknowledged that the software isn't licensed-by-the-DOE for that or
> designed for that.
The license in question says that the software is not licensed for use
in nuclear power plants. Since this is a copyright license, that means
that making copies of the software with the intent of using those copies
in a nuclear power plant is a violation of copyright.
> >> 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?
>
> Wha? No, but so what?
That pretty much captures my thoughts about the nuclear power plant
clause.
Putting in the license that the software is not licensed for some use
is a problem because derivative works are subject to the same license.
The absence of certification should be sufficient evidence that the
software is not certified.
> > 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.
>
> OK. Let's say all of that. Then these people can still acknowledge
> that the software isn't designed by Sun or licensed by the DOE for
> this use, then go get the DOE license. No problem.
The LICENSE file is a Sun license file, not a DOE license file -- it
doesn't mention the DOE at all.
Furthermore, it's rather clearly a copyright license.
Also, if the DOE did license it, the copyright would still say:
"You acknowledge that this software is not ... licensed ..."
> They aren't making statements about its use,
Then why does the license contain the verb "use" twice?
--
Raul
Reply to: