www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ted Dunning (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (LEGAL-304) BSD3 with nuclear clause
Date Thu, 27 Apr 2017 17:34:04 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-304?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15987113#comment-15987113

Ted Dunning commented on LEGAL-304:

I checked with a friend who used to be in charge of licensing at Sun.

He said that the clause originated at Sun and that he was very familiar with the nuclear clause.
That clause was added as a liability limitation and not a field of use limitation.

Horse's mouth and all that.

> BSD3 with nuclear clause
> ------------------------
>                 Key: LEGAL-304
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-304
>             Project: Legal Discuss
>          Issue Type: Question
>            Reporter: Tim Allison
> On LEGAL-44, a question was asked about whether BSD-3 with the nuclear clause was acceptable?
 Two conflicting opinions were expressed, and the issue was closed because of a change in
the license.
> On TIKA-2338, we'd like to move a a portion of a dependency that was restricted to test-scope
(according to LEGAL-37) to our regular distribution because that portion has been moved to
> However, we noticed that this is BSD-3 with the [nuclear clause|https://github.com/jai-imageio/jai-imageio-core/blob/master/LICENSE.txt].
 Can we include this in our distribution under ASL 2.0?
> Is this a "field of use" restriction (which would lead to a "no" answer) or is this an
"acceptance of no liability" (which would lead to a "yes" answer)?

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA

To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org

View raw message