> [1] https://www.google.com/search?q="intended for use in the design%2C > construction%2Coperation or maintenance of any nuclear facility"
That's a completely different legal text. I agree that "not intended for use in the design, construction, operation, or maintenance of any nuclear facility" is not a licensing term, it's a notification of fact that is intended to counter warranty claims. It doesn't say you CAN'T do it, it's just a warning that it wasn't intended for the purpose. Perhaps *that* clause (not the previous one noted) should be a standard "exception" clause, like the CLASSPATH exception. However, a text that says "This is not LICENSED for <some use>" is a completely different ballgame. Since by default copyright doesn't allow use (under many interpretations), that says that you are NOT permitted to use the software for some purpose, and *ALL* definitions of FOSS unanimously agree that is *NOT* acceptable. It's not really different from the "You may not use this for commercial purposes" or "You may only use this for research" riders that are often seen. Those are common, and also non-FOSS. > It’s about value, not FOSS purity. No, it's about truth. Either the license list is a list of FOSS licenses, or it's a list of licenses including FOSS licenses. The group needs to make a choice, and state that clearly. I think it'd be fine to include non-FOSS or "FOSS-like" licenses (like this one) in the license list. However, if it does, it must NOT say that this is a list of FOSS licenses, because this "non-nuclear" example is NOT a FOSS license. Instead, it should say what the list is (e.g., "This is a list of FOSS and FOSS-like licenses"). SPDX is supposed to help people be legally precise; having false statements (especially in something so visible) will give people immediate pause. --- David A. Wheeler _______________________________________________ Spdx-legal mailing list Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
