I am the upstream author of analog. Sorry for not contributing to this discussion earlier. I just got back from holiday to find this forty-message thread.
Contrary to what the filer of the original bug says, I did change this clause after he contacted me before -- that's why it changed from (the obviously wrong) "any action" to the current "any use of analog". I assumed by his silence that I'd met his objections, but I'm still not sure whether I did as he is still quoting from the old version of the licence. The reason for this clause was that I was advised by a lawyer (albeit in an informal conversation) that I could be liable under UK law if a user used the program to, for example, process user data against the Data Protection Act. The US courts seem to me to be leaning this way as well recently in cases on Napster et al. Personally, I don't really see that this condition is DFSG-non-free anyway in that it doesn't IMO "restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor". But I would also like _informed_ opinions on whether I could be liable in the UK for users' illegal use of analog. If so, would my clause cover me? Would a simple disclaimer clause? -- Stephen Turner http://www.statslab.cam.ac.uk/~sret1/ Statistical Laboratory, Wilberforce Road, Cambridge, CB3 0WB, England "The new operating system will recover more easily from system crashes." (Microsoft, aiming high with Windows Millennium)
