www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [jira] [Commented] (LEGAL-304) BSD3 with nuclear clause
Date Tue, 16 May 2017 14:14:13 GMT
On 15/05/2017 20:57, Ted Dunning wrote:
> 
> 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.

I've learned the hard way that the meaning I attribute to words is often 
very different to the meaning a lawyer (and the courts) would attribute.

Is it possible that while the intent was not to create a FoU restriction 
that is what they ended up with?

Mark


> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 7:16 AM, John D. Ament <johndament@apache.org 
> <mailto: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
>     <mailto: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
>         <mailto: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
>             <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
>             <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
>             <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
>             <mailto:legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org>
>             For additional commands, e-mail:
>             legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>             <mailto:legal-discuss-help@apache.org>
> 
> 


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


Mime
View raw message