Re: Sun Developer Network source code license - "
tony mancill writes:
> Dear Debian Legal,
> I'm working on a package that includes a source file from a tutorial on
> the Sun Developer's Network. The source file is not explicitly
> licensed, so it falls under the catch-all license link  that Sun
> publishes at the bottom of all of their pages. 
> The license itself seems until it includes this statement:
> You acknowledge that this software is not designed, licensed or
> intended for use in the design, construction, operation or maintenance
> of any nuclear facility.
> My question is, should this be considered a limitation as per part 6 of
> the DFSG (No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor)? The software
> is dguitar , a reader/player application of GuitarPro tablature
> files, so it's quite a stretch to think about it being used in
> conjunction with a nuclear facility (whatever the legal definition of
> that would be).
It does not explicitly prohibit use in those fields, so I see no
problem. I believe the meaning of "licensed" used there is one
specific to nuclear facilities. You will sometimes find similar
clauses stating that software is not designed or intended for use
where a person's life or health may be endangered by malfunction.
> The software must already go into contrib because it requires a non-free
> JVM. Does the upstream author need to state somewhere in his license
> that dguitar was not "designed, licensed, or intended" for use in a
> nuclear facility? And doesn't that just push it back into non-free anyway?
I believe it is a liability issue for Sun. Some governments regulate
what software may run in nuclear facilities (for example, ), and
the apparent purpose of that clause is to establish that the burden of
proof that the software is appropriate for those uses is on the user.