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

Re: Is javacc DFSG compliant?

Raul Miller <moth@debian.org> writes:

>> > 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.

I don't think you know what you're talking about with respect to
licenses for nuclear power plants, and you're assuming a bunch of
stuff that isn't true.  Please either avail yourself of opportunities
for education or stick to the copyright parts of this issue.

>> >> 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.

No, it doesn't.  It says you have to acknowledge that it's not
licensed for use in nukes, but that's very clearly not talking about
copyright licenses.  I understand why you're confused.  But this is
not about copyright licenses, this is about licenses to operate power plants.

Sun makes and sells power plant operating software, which *is*
properly certified.  They need to make it clear that this isn't that
-- that's all.

>> >> 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.

But it isn't.  I'm sorry the DOE hasn't written its regulations the
way you would like, but we'll all have to live with that.

>> > 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 ..."

But the way the DOE cert process works, that isn't going to happen.


Brian Sniffen                                       bts@alum.mit.edu

Reply to: