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

Re: Is javacc DFSG compliant?

> > 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.

On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 05:02:30PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> 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.

You do seem to be focussing on a narrow scope than I.

> Please either avail yourself of opportunities for education or stick
> to the copyright parts of this issue.

I do understand that the licensing process for a U.S. nuclear plant
design takes years and involves a lot of red tape.

If you have some specific class of information you'd like me to study,
you'll have to do a better job of describing it than "avail yourself of
opportunities for education".

> >> 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.

It says:

   You acknowledge that this software is not designed, licensed or
   intended for use in the design, construction, operation or maintenance
   of any nuclear facility.

Claiming I'm confused, because I can't see that it's saying "... the
NRC has not certified or approved this software as a part of a standard
plant design..." or anything of that nature doesn't make it say something
other than what it says.

> 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.

That makes it understandable why the sentence is there.

But that sentence could be phrased much less ambiguously.

> > 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.

Could you cite regulation in question?  10 CFR _____?

> > 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.

You might be right.  The DOE process is certainly slow enough that nothing
is going to happen in the context of the DOE in the next few years.

And, I will grant that this clause doesn't stop us from patching or
maintaining javacc.

But, if we're going to be concerned about dissidents in other countries
as a free software issue, then we ought to be concerned about nuclear
power plants in other countries -- or in the US if the regulatory
environment changes.

Not that I think we're likely to see anyone want to use java in a nuclear
analysis facility or anything.  Why bother when they can use c#?


Reply to: