Re: Licensing issues (Java/OpenGL-based graphics package for octave)

[John W. Eaton]

On 25-Apr-2007, Paul Kienzle wrote:

| On Apr 25, 2007, at 7:51 PM, John W. Eaton wrote:
| 
| > I was trying to see what was needed to run this on a Debian system and 
| > looked at the JOGL license which is claimed to be "BSD" but includes 
| > the clause
| >
| >    You acknowledge that this software is not designed
| >    or intended for use in the design, construction,
| >    operation or maintenance of any nuclear facility.
| >
| > This extra condition would make it incompatible with the GPL and would 
| > cause trouble if JOGL is linked with Octave (even indirectly).
| 
| 
| The clause in question is:
| 
|       You may not impose any further restrictions on the
|     recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
| 
| IANAL, but acknowledging that software is not designed or intended for 
| use in situations where high quality assurance guidelines are required 
| does not further restrict any of the rights granted by the GPL, since 
| the user is still free to use them in the inappropriate context (though 
| doing so will leave them subject to fines and possible prison terms).

OK, I think I may have been misinterpreting the "You acknowledge"
clause.  I was reading it as a statement that the software may not be
used for some specific purposes (similar to the typical
"non-commercial use only" clauses).

| The work we do with octave at NIST is not involved in the design, 
| construction, operation or maintenance of a nuclear facility.  

OK.

| Furthermore, nobody should be using Octave in such an environment since 
| it has not undergone the certification process required for such use.

Agreed.

| You are correct that this clause is pointless because the people who 
| care are not going to be using software which hasn't been certified for 
| their particular use and which has such lax change control and testing 
| standards, while those who don't care are unaffected.

Again, given that I was misreading this clause as a restriction on
use, not an acknowledgement of possible design limitation, I was also
thinking of how silly it is to name just one possible dangerous use,
or a single use that the author happens to not like, and to use vague
language when describing the use.  Precisely what is a "nuclear
facility" and what does "operation" cover?  Only the actual operation
of dangerous equipment (say the reactor itself), or the operation of
other peripheral data gathering equipment?  Is the clause there
because of the potential danger, or because the author just doesn't
like "nuclear facilities" and doesn't want the software anywhere near
them?

jwe