Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > 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.
I don't think you know what you're talking about with respect to licenses for nuclear power plants, and you're assuming a bunch of stuff that isn't true. Please either avail yourself of opportunities for education or stick to the copyright parts of this issue. >> >> 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. No, it doesn't. It says you have to acknowledge that it's not licensed for use in nukes, but that's very clearly not talking about copyright licenses. I understand why you're confused. But this is not about copyright licenses, this is about licenses to operate power plants. Sun makes and sells power plant operating software, which *is* properly certified. They need to make it clear that this isn't that -- that's all. >> >> 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. But it isn't. I'm sorry the DOE hasn't written its regulations the way you would like, but we'll all have to live with that. >> > 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 ..." But the way the DOE cert process works, that isn't going to happen. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
