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

Re: Problem with license of msv-xsdlib

Eric Lavarde - Debian writes:

> Hi,
> sorry that I answer so late but I was privately and professionally under
> time pressure.
>> On Sep 7, 2006, at 14:59, Eric Lavarde - Debian wrote:
>>> Background of question 3 is that someone on the list might have an
>>> idea
>>> which other license could be acceptable to Sun (and I might suggest
>>> it to
>>> the developer).
>> msv itself is under the new three-point BSD license plus a nuclear
>> facility acknowledgement. Is there a particular reason why Sun isn't
>> licensing the msv extensions under the same license?
> You tell me :-) More seriously, it's more or less the same license but
> with also bits of this and that licenses (e.g. the old Sun license).
> BTW, the nuclear facility acknowledgement seems as well to be an issue.
>>From ftpmaster: "rejected, this must go to non-free.
> -------
> You acknowledge that Software is not designed,licensed or intended for
> use  in the  design,  construction, operation  or  maintenance of  any
> nuclear facility.
> -------
> The word licensed in that sentence makes it non-free, the rest would be
> just some blabber."

This is common and understandable confusion -- it has come up before
on -legal -- but I suspect the ftpmaster is mistaken here.  "Licensed"
in this context *probably* only means licensed by relevant government

I believe that, absent some other sign that the word "licensed" means
copyright license, such clauses should be read as only referring to
regulatory licenses.

By similar example, "This software is not licensed to operate a motor
vehicle".  This *could* be interpreted as talking about a copyright
license, but the more sensible interpretation is a driver's license.

Requiring that a licensee acknowledge the software's lack of such a
regulatory license is a way for the copyright licensor to protect
against liability if the software is used in some way that violates
the relevant regulations.

Michael Poole

Reply to: