Re: Sun has an ombudsman

[Mark Wielaard <mark@klomp.org>]

Lewis Jardine <debian <at> catbox.co.uk> writes:

> 
> Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > I would like to
> > encourage people to email him whenever they spot things like the
> > "nuclear clause" in packages from Sun which prevent them going into
> > main. 
> 
> I thought the nuclear clause was merely an observation, and thus not a 
> restriction? I.E. Java is not licensed for use in a nuclear power plant 
> in the same way that I'm not licensed to drive a truck, or to operate a 
> public house.
> 
> While poorly phrased (especially when read from the context of someone 
> who deals with licenses all day), is the possibility that it could be 
> misinterpreted sufficient to be a discrimination against a field of 
> endeavour? Would a simple 'Yeah, we meant license-as-in-certification' 
> statement from Sun suffice?

Depends on the particular instance of the clause. In this particular case it was
worded as follows:

 * Nuclear, missile,
 * chemical biological weapons or nuclear maritime end uses or end users,
 * whether direct or indirect, are strictly prohibited.

Unfortunately Sun has multiple different variants of this clause in use. Some
might be less problematic, but the above variant certainly is.

Cheers,

Mark