Re: Java3D license incompatible with DFSG?
Eric Smith <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> In the course of trying to package Java3D for Fedora, Tom Calloway brought
> to my attention that the Java3D license includes the following 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.
> In addition to being incompatible with Fedora licensing practices,
> that seems to violate section 6 ("Fields of Endeavor") of the DFSG and
> the corresponding section of the OSI Open Source Definition.
There is ambiguity in the passive-tense phrase “is not designed,
licensed or intended for use in …”. Is not licensed by whom?
This is part of a copyright statement, so it's natural to interpret it
as referring to copyright license: the copyright holder does not license
the work for these uses.
But it's also plausible that the author of that statement is referring
to a license *from government* specific to design, construction,
operation or maintenance of nuclear facilities, and nothing to do with
copyright: the government does not license the recipient for these uses.
I don't think we should rely on either interpretation; ambiguity in
copyright licenses is dangerous.
My advice is to seek a better license statement from the copyright
holder which makes it clear what the clause means.
\ “Science and religion are incompatible in the same sense that |
`\ the serious pursuit of knowledge of reality is incompatible |
_o__) with bullshit.” —Paul Z. Myers, 2010-03-14 |