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

Re: Java3D license incompatible with DFSG?

* Eric Smith <eric@brouhaha.com> [120915 20:38]:
> I quoted from the Sun license on Java3D:
> >* You acknowledge that this software is not designed, licensed or
> >* intended for use in the design, construction, operation or
> >* maintenance of any nuclear facility.
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> >This is a standard "No warranty" clause wrt nuclear facilities in
> >the US. It is not a restriction placed on the use of the software
> >in nuclear facilities by the copyright holder, it is a CYA
> >statement that the software has not been approved *by the
> >government regulatory agencies* for use in nuclear facilities in
> >the US. Warranty disclaimers are fine under the DFSG.
> While that may[*] have been the intent, it specifically states that
> the software is "not [...] licensed". It is explicitly stating that
> Sun was not granting the BSD license, or any other license, to those
> in that field of endeavor. Since the license is the only thing that
> grants permission to make copies of the software, those in that
> field of endeavor are not permitted to make copies.

If they are explicitly stating they were not granting a license, why
did they grant a license just in the lines before that? There is no
restriction in the whole license text w.r.t. this field of endeavor.
Only a statement that one should know that the software "is not
designed, licensed or intended" for use there.
Native speakers might correct me, but according to my dictionary
"to be licensed" is the term for a governmental approval, while
I have not yet seen this term used for copyright licenses
(and this license does not even uses the word license for copyright
issues at all, but speaks of permissions).
The combination with "designed" and "intended" also makes your
interpretation hard to defend, because if copyright law was
already forbidding the usage, what does it matter whether it was
designed or intended for that case?

        Bernhard R. Link

Reply to: