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

[Thomas Weber]

Am Donnerstag, 26. April 2007 04:45:42 schrieb John W. Eaton:
> On 25-Apr-2007, Paul Kienzle wrote:
> | On Apr 25, 2007, at 7:51 PM, John W. Eaton wrote:
> | >    You acknowledge that this software is not designed
> | >    or intended for use in the design, construction,
> | >    operation or maintenance of any nuclear facility.
> | >
> OK, I think I may have been misinterpreting the "You acknowledge"
> clause.  I was reading it as a statement that the software may not be
> used for some specific purposes (similar to the typical
> "non-commercial use only" clauses).
>

> Again, given that I was misreading this clause as a restriction on
> use, not an acknowledgement of possible design limitation, I was also
> thinking of how silly it is to name just one possible dangerous use,
> or a single use that the author happens to not like, and to use vague
> language when describing the use.  Precisely what is a "nuclear
> facility" and what does "operation" cover?  Only the actual operation
> of dangerous equipment (say the reactor itself), or the operation of
> other peripheral data gathering equipment?  Is the clause there
> because of the potential danger, or because the author just doesn't
> like "nuclear facilities" and doesn't want the software anywhere near
> them?

Sun introduced such terms several years ago, in different variations. There is 
one version where it says "is not designed, licensed or intended", which was 
much more problematic. It seems that that Sun meant "licensed by the 
Department of Energy". With that in mind, the definition of "nuclear 
facility" and "operation" becomes a problem of the DOE, which makes some 
sense.

This clause should probably be written as "If you are stupid enough to run 
unapproved software in your high-risk environment, don't come back to us if 
it fails". 

        Thomas