octave-maintainers
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

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


From: Paul Kienzle
Subject: Re: Licensing issues (Java/OpenGL-based graphics package for octave)
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 21:42:30 -0400


On Apr 25, 2007, at 7:51 PM, John W. Eaton wrote:

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).


The clause in question is:

        You may not impose any further restrictions on the
   recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.

IANAL, but acknowledging that software is not designed or intended for use in situations where high quality assurance guidelines are required does not further restrict any of the rights granted by the GPL, since the user is still free to use them in the inappropriate context (though doing so will leave them subject to fines and possible prison terms).

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.

The work we do with octave at NIST is not involved in the design, construction, operation or maintenance of a nuclear facility. Furthermore, nobody should be using Octave in such an environment since it has not undergone the certification process required for such use.

You are correct that this clause is pointless because the people who care are not going to be using software which hasn't been certified for their particular use and which has such lax change control and testing standards, while those who don't care are unaffected.


- Paul



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]