tony mancill writes: > Dear Debian Legal, > > I'm working on a package that includes a source file from a tutorial on > the Sun Developer's Network. The source file is not explicitly > licensed, so it falls under the catch-all license link [1] that Sun > publishes at the bottom of all of their pages. [2] > > The license itself seems until it includes this statement: > > You acknowledge that this software is not designed, licensed or > intended for use in the design, construction, operation or maintenance > of any nuclear facility. > > My question is, should this be considered a limitation as per part 6 of > the DFSG (No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor)? The software > is dguitar [3], a reader/player application of GuitarPro tablature > files, so it's quite a stretch to think about it being used in > conjunction with a nuclear facility (whatever the legal definition of > that would be).
It does not explicitly prohibit use in those fields, so I see no problem. I believe the meaning of "licensed" used there is one specific to nuclear facilities. You will sometimes find similar clauses stating that software is not designed or intended for use where a person's life or health may be endangered by malfunction. > The software must already go into contrib because it requires a non-free > JVM. Does the upstream author need to state somewhere in his license > that dguitar was not "designed, licensed, or intended" for use in a > nuclear facility? And doesn't that just push it back into non-free anyway? I believe it is a liability issue for Sun. Some governments regulate what software may run in nuclear facilities (for example, [1]), and the apparent purpose of that clause is to establish that the burden of proof that the software is appropriate for those uses is on the user. [1]- http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/reg-guides/power-reactors/active/01-152/ Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
