We've been looking at code which has a traditional BSD license, with the following sentence added:
You acknowledge that this software is not designed or intended for use in the design, construction, operation or maintenance of any nuclear facility.
I don't believe this has been officially submitted to OSI for review as part of a BSD license, though I see other OSI-approved licenses have this clause (Apple, Real, Reciprocal?). I believe the rationale is that this is an acknowledgment, but a limitation on use in nuclear facilities, and so it's OK.
Would including this clause in a BSD-license be OK?
Mitchell
Brian Behlendorf wrote:
I know this list is supposed to be about reviewing proposed licenses rather than speculation, but hopefully you'll at least find this question more on-topic than most.
With respect to the language at the top of:
http://geronimo.apache.org/download.html
and for context:
http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]&msgNo=52
The NOTICE Sun is asking us to post seems, to me, to effectively constitute an additional term of copyright. Such a term would not seem to be OSD compliant. Empirically I can argue this easily, as no open source license has been approved with such a conformance requirement on derivative works (AFAIK). The Sun Internet Standards Source License comes close, but it also allows the release of non-conformant works so long as the full source code to non-conformant works is available. What I need are solid sound-bite-y easy-to-explain but non-dogmatic arguments as to why such a conformance requirement is not compatible with the way Open Source works (putting aside compatibility with any particular licenses).
Thanks in advance,
Brian -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
-- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
