> > On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 12:57:57PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > >> Your lawyers are insane.
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Cite? On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 01:55:55PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > You're considering using unproven, uncertified software running in a > JVM to operate an unlicensed nuclear power plant, ... False. Either [a] the software is first being certified (possibly being modified in the process), or [b] it's not being used to operate the plant. Also, there's no reason to exclude licensed nuclear power plants from this discussion. > >> It's illegal to use this software in nuclear power plants. > > > > That's for a judge to determine. > > > > It's illegal in the context of copyrights to make copies for > > use in nuclear power plants (which conflicts with the fields > > of endeavor part of the DFSG). > > No, it isn't. It doesn't say you can't do so -- just that you've > acknowledged that the software isn't licensed-by-the-DOE for that or > designed for that. The license in question says that the software is not licensed for use in nuclear power plants. Since this is a copyright license, that means that making copies of the software with the intent of using those copies in a nuclear power plant is a violation of copyright. > >> But the fact that it isn't designed for use in a nuke is *true*. > > > > It's not designed for use on a cucumber farm, either. Does that make > > it illegal to use on a cuke? > > Wha? No, but so what? That pretty much captures my thoughts about the nuclear power plant clause. Putting in the license that the software is not licensed for some use is a problem because derivative works are subject to the same license. The absence of certification should be sufficient evidence that the software is not certified. > > Let's say someone was seriously intending to use this software in a > > nuclear power plant. Let's say that Sun wouldn't provide acceptable > > alternate licensing. Let's also say that the people involved in this > > plan are responsible and either [a] are using it in contexts where > > failure of the system isn't a critical issue, or [b] are first having > > a team of programmers go over the relevant code to certify that it will > > perform as needed. > > OK. Let's say all of that. Then these people can still acknowledge > that the software isn't designed by Sun or licensed by the DOE for > this use, then go get the DOE license. No problem. The LICENSE file is a Sun license file, not a DOE license file -- it doesn't mention the DOE at all. Furthermore, it's rather clearly a copyright license. Also, if the DOE did license it, the copyright would still say: "You acknowledge that this software is not ... licensed ..." > They aren't making statements about its use, Then why does the license contain the verb "use" twice? -- Raul
