Licensing issues (Java/OpenGL-based graphics package for octave)

[John W. Eaton]

On 23-Apr-2007, Michael Goffioul wrote:

| As requirements, you need Java, JOGL (Java interface to OpenGL) and
| the java interface package from octave-forge. The README file of the
| package contains a few hints for installation (especially for JOGL).

I was trying to see what was needed to run this on a Debian system and
looked at the JOGL license which is claimed to be "BSD" but includes
the clause

   You acknowledge that this software is not designed or intended for use
   in the design, construction, operation or maintenance of any nuclear
   facility.

This extra condition would make it incompatible with the GPL and would
cause trouble if JOGL is linked with Octave (even indirectly).  So how
is JOGL used here?  When Octave uses Java with your interface, how is
that managed?  Is Octave linked with the Java runtime environment?
Is the JRE linked with JOGL?  If yes to both, then the result is that
all of these things are linked together and that clause causes
trouble.

Even if these libraries are not all linked together, then the clause
is not in the spirit of the GPL since the GPL places no restriction on
what the software is used for (in the sense of running the software,
not distributing or creating derivative works).

The following is really irrelevant to the copyright issue, but I think
points out the stupidity of such clauses in licenses:

What does "nuclear facility" mean here?  Does the NIST Center for
Neutron Research qualify as a "nuclear facility" (I use this as an
example because they are long time Octave users, contributors, and
supporters)?  Does that mean that if we adopted your code using the
JOGL library, then our friends at NIST would not be able to use Octave
graphics?  Regardless of whether the code is GPL compatible, it seems
that the use restriction on that library would cause some trouble for
some of our users.  Ugh.

jwe