www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [jira] [Commented] (LEGAL-304) BSD3 with nuclear clause
Date Mon, 15 May 2017 19:57:22 GMT
A field of use restriction would say something of the flavor of "This
license is restricted ..." or "You may not exercise any of the rights ...".
The clause in question doesn't do that.

What this says is that you acknowledge that the software was not designed
or intended for use. That doesn't say that you can't do it, nor does it say
that the license is limited to non-nuclear use. It merely says that you say
that you know that the original authors didn't design it for such use and,
by implication and conjunction with the liability limitation, it is on your
head if you cause a problem by so using this software.

I hate it when people say "Trust me", but in this case my source is good
enough that I really can say trust me on this interpretation.





On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 7:16 AM, John D. Ament <johndament@apache.org>
wrote:

> Just to make sure its on the thread, here's the text:
>
> You acknowledge that this software is not designed or intended for
> use in the design, construction, operation or maintenance of any
> nuclear facility.
>
> That is a field of use restriction.  Similar to what happened w/ the JSON
> license, We are explicitly saying that the software cannot be used as a
> part of a nuclear facility.  I read that as if the nuclear facility
> published statistics to a tomcat server, tomcat cannot leverage software
> with this license.
>
> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 10:10 AM Ted Dunning <ted.dunning@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Those lawyers didn't read the text very carefully.  This is NOT a field
>> of use restriction.  It was intended (according to my source who was there
>> at the time) as a liability warning.
>>
>>
>>
>> On May 15, 2017 4:59 AM, "Jim Jagielski (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-304?page=
>>> com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-
>>> tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16010386#comment-16010386 ]
>>>
>>> Jim Jagielski commented on LEGAL-304:
>>> -------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Oops. Seems I was premature. As OSCON I spoke w/ several lawyers about
>>> it. Unanimously, every one considered it a FOU restriction since the clear
>>> intent of the author/licensor is to prevent said s/w from being used in a
>>> specific way.
>>>
>>>
>>> > 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 BSD-3.
>>> > 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
>>> (v6.3.15#6346)
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>>
>>>

Mime
View raw message