Eric Smith <[email protected]> writes: > In the course of trying to package Java3D for Fedora, Tom Calloway brought > to my attention that the Java3D license includes the following 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. > > In addition to being incompatible with Fedora licensing practices, > that seems to violate section 6 ("Fields of Endeavor") of the DFSG and > the corresponding section of the OSI Open Source Definition.
There is ambiguity in the passive-tense phrase “is not designed, licensed or intended for use in …”. Is not licensed by whom? This is part of a copyright statement, so it's natural to interpret it as referring to copyright license: the copyright holder does not license the work for these uses. But it's also plausible that the author of that statement is referring to a license *from government* specific to design, construction, operation or maintenance of nuclear facilities, and nothing to do with copyright: the government does not license the recipient for these uses. I don't think we should rely on either interpretation; ambiguity in copyright licenses is dangerous. My advice is to seek a better license statement from the copyright holder which makes it clear what the clause means. -- \ “Science and religion are incompatible in the same sense that | `\ the serious pursuit of knowledge of reality is incompatible | _o__) with bullshit.” —Paul Z. Myers, 2010-03-14 | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
