The application of local law is a different matter.  There is generally no 
reason to specify it in a license.  Software with a mandated back-door or 
key-escrow arrangement in its implementation can certainly be open-source 
unless there is a legal prohibition of disclosing such code, in which case it 
is not open-source, is it (and that action may be in violation of an 
open-source license, but that’s a different matter).
Disclaimers and statements of warranty are different, although some licenses 
require that disclaimers be preserved.  It is one thing to disclaim software as 
unsuitable for use in situations where there are hazards to life and property, 
such as nuclear reactor control software or pacemaker devices, and another to 
have the software be open-source.  
The famous Java disclaimer about life-threatening situations is a disclaimer.  
The obligation to perpetuate the disclaimer is part of a licensing arrangement 
around the Java trademark and certification process, and doesn’t have anything 
to do with open-source licensing.  The OpenJDK is under GPL2 with a class-path 
exception, so there is explicitly no warranty whatsoever for any use 
whatsoever. The special Java disclaimer is not present. (See
-   Dennis
From: Dirk-Willem van Gulik [] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 2, 2014 01:46
Cc: David Welton
Subject: Re: Government License
Op 2 jul. 2014, om 10:33 heeft Greg Stein < 
<> > het volgende geschreven:

[ … ]
But I think the situation around this is a bit more complex there - and I 
think, we, as a community, should cut developers a bit more slack. As there you 
run into the issue that local laws, legislation and regulation. Which can force 
developers in specific communities to be cautious for certain areas. A well 
known one is software used in nuclear installations; others are medical (in 
quite a few countries), military (in very few) and aviation (decreasingly the 

Reply via email to