Advice on BSD license with nuclear clause

2004-10-13 Thread Duncan Laurie
Hello, I am the author of a program called IPMItool[1] and I am working with Noèl Köthe to get it packaged for Debian. It is released under the Sun BSD license, which looks like your typical Revised BSD with the addition of a clause concerning use of the software in nuclear facilities. The full

Re: Is javacc DFSG compliant?

2004-10-13 Thread Duncan Laurie
On Wed, 2004-10-13 at 11:29 +0200, Kaare Hviid wrote: > Package: javacc > Version: 3.2+0-1 > Severity: wishlist > > I'm not a Debian developer, I'm not in any way a legal expert, nor am I > on the debian-legal list, but I found this odd, and a clarification > might be due. > > The javacc (3.2+0-1

Re: Is javacc DFSG compliant?

2004-10-13 Thread Duncan Laurie
On Wed, 2004-10-13 at 11:31 -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > That occurance of "licensed" doesn't refer to the copyright license. > It refers to DOE licensing of technology for operating nuclear > facilities. It's perfectly Free. Indeed that probably explains why it was put in to begin with,

Re: Is javacc DFSG compliant?

2004-10-14 Thread Duncan Laurie
On Thu, 2004-10-14 at 09:49 +0200, Kaare Hviid wrote: > > If the Sun legal department can't be convinced of dropping "licensed", > could they by any chance be convinced of rewriting it as "licensed by > the U.S. Department of Energy"? That should make the context clear, > also considering that Su