You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by Antonio Gallardo <an...@apache.org> on 2005/09/09 17:18:13 UTC
"nuclear facility" clausule in Sun license is compatible?
Hi folks,
This license is basically BSD compatible. The only difference seems to
be the lastest paragraph that seems to impose a restriction. I will like
to know if this license should be considered as an Apache License
compatible license or not.
Thanks in advance.
Best Regards,
Antonio Gallardo.
Here is the full license text:
Copyright (c) 2001-2003 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All Rights
Reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or
without modification, are permitted provided that the
following conditions are met:
- Redistributions of source code must retain the above
copyright notice, this list of conditions and the
following disclaimer.
- Redistribution in binary form must reproduct the above
copyright notice, this list of conditions and the
following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other
materials provided with the distribution.
Neither the name of Sun Microsystems, Inc. or the names of
contributors may be used to endorse or promote products
derived from this software without specific prior written
permission.
This software is provided "AS IS," without a warranty of any
kind. ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED CONDITIONS, REPRESENTATIONS
AND WARRANTIES, INCLUDING ANY IMPLIED WARRANTY OF
MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR
NON-INFRINGEMENT, ARE HEREBY EXCLUDED. SUN AND ITS
LICENSORS SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES OR LIABILITIES
SUFFERED BY LICENSEE AS A RESULT OF OR RELATING TO USE,
MODIFICATION OR DISTRIBUTION OF THE SOFTWARE OR ITS
DERIVATIVES. IN NO EVENT WILL SUN OR ITS LICENSORS BE
LIABLE FOR ANY LOST REVENUE, PROFIT OR DATA, OR FOR DIRECT,
INDIRECT, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, INCIDENTAL OR PUNITIVE
DAMAGES, HOWEVER CAUSED AND REGARDLESS OF THE THEORY OF
LIABILITY, ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF OR INABILITY TO USE
SOFTWARE, EVEN IF SUN HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF
SUCH DAMAGES.
You acknowledge that Software is not designed,licensed or
intended for use in the design, construction, operation or
maintenance of any nuclear facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: "nuclear facility" clausule in Sun license is compatible?
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
Ok- I'm wrong here. This isn't the BCL, but a source license of some
sort. I'm sorry for adding confusion.
This license technically wouldn't pass muster with the OSI as an open
source initiative because of the limits on "field of use" because of
the restriction on nuclear facilities.
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program
in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the
program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic
research.
Rationale: The major intention of this clause is to prohibit license
traps that prevent open source from being used commercially. We want
commercial users to join our community, not feel excluded from it.
http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php
On Sep 11, 2005, at 8:22 PM, Antonio Gallardo wrote:
> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>
>>
>> On Sep 9, 2005, at 11:18 AM, Antonio Gallardo wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Hi folks,
>>>
>>> This license is basically BSD compatible. The only difference
>>> seems to be the lastest paragraph that seems to impose a
>>> restriction. I will like to know if this license should be
>>> considered as an Apache License compatible license or not.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I think you are showing us an old version of the license. I spent
>> a lot of time talking to Sun in the last few years about this
>> license, and since then they have removed the "not licensed for
>> nukes" restriction. It's not designed, recommended, etc, but they
>> removed the "not licensed" restriction.
>>
>> However, the license still has a problem - it generally has a
>> requirement that we and our users indemnify Sun. it also generally
>> doesn't allow redistribution of the binary except as a part of a
>> program that uses it.
>>
>
>
>
>>
>> Finally, there are many versions of the Sun Binary License.
>> There's standard boilerplate and always Supplemental Terms. It's
>> important to figure out what they are.
>>
>> So, lets be precise - where are you getting this license from?
>>
>
>
> Thanks for your the answer Geir!
>
> I don't know from where the initial contributor took it. I believe
> it was taken from: http://www.sun.com/software/xml/developers/
> multischema/
> I found the MSV project is currently hosted at http://
> msv.dev.java.net/
>
> I reviewed the lastest license from the snapshot 2005-Sept-10 and
> the only difference with the one I posted is the "last copyright
> year":
>
> old: Copyright (c) 2001-2003 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All Rights
> Reserved.
> new: Copyright (c) 2001-2005 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All Rights
> Reserved.
>
> In anycase, here is the lastest license:
>
> Copyright (c) 2001-2005 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
>
> Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
> modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are
> met:
>
> - Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
> notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
>
> - Redistribution in binary form must reproduct the above copyright
> notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
> documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
>
> Neither the name of Sun Microsystems, Inc. or the names of
> contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from
> this software without specific prior written permission.
>
> This software is provided "AS IS," without a warranty of any kind. ALL
> EXPRESS OR IMPLIED CONDITIONS, REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES,
> INCLUDING ANY IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A
> PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR NON-INFRINGEMENT, ARE HEREBY EXCLUDED. SUN AND
> ITS LICENSORS SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES OR LIABILITIES
> SUFFERED BY LICENSEE AS A RESULT OF OR RELATING TO USE, MODIFICATION
> OR DISTRIBUTION OF THE SOFTWARE OR ITS DERIVATIVES. IN NO EVENT WILL
> SUN OR ITS LICENSORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY LOST REVENUE, PROFIT OR DATA,
> OR FOR DIRECT, INDIRECT, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, INCIDENTAL OR
> PUNITIVE DAMAGES, HOWEVER CAUSED AND REGARDLESS OF THE THEORY OF
> LIABILITY, ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF OR INABILITY TO USE SOFTWARE,
> EVEN IF SUN HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
>
> You acknowledge that Software is not designed,licensed or intended for
> use in the design, construction, operation or maintenance of any
> nuclear facility.
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Antonio Gallardo.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
> only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: "nuclear facility" clausule in Sun license is compatible?
Posted by Antonio Gallardo <an...@apache.org>.
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
> On Sep 9, 2005, at 11:18 AM, Antonio Gallardo wrote:
>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> This license is basically BSD compatible. The only difference seems
>> to be the lastest paragraph that seems to impose a restriction. I
>> will like to know if this license should be considered as an Apache
>> License compatible license or not.
>
>
>
> I think you are showing us an old version of the license. I spent a
> lot of time talking to Sun in the last few years about this license,
> and since then they have removed the "not licensed for nukes"
> restriction. It's not designed, recommended, etc, but they removed the
> "not licensed" restriction.
>
> However, the license still has a problem - it generally has a
> requirement that we and our users indemnify Sun. it also generally
> doesn't allow redistribution of the binary except as a part of a
> program that uses it.
>
> Finally, there are many versions of the Sun Binary License. There's
> standard boilerplate and always Supplemental Terms. It's important to
> figure out what they are.
>
> So, lets be precise - where are you getting this license from?
Thanks for your the answer Geir!
I don't know from where the initial contributor took it. I believe it
was taken from: http://www.sun.com/software/xml/developers/multischema/
I found the MSV project is currently hosted at http://msv.dev.java.net/
I reviewed the lastest license from the snapshot 2005-Sept-10 and the
only difference with the one I posted is the "last copyright year":
old: Copyright (c) 2001-2003 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
new: Copyright (c) 2001-2005 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
In anycase, here is the lastest license:
Copyright (c) 2001-2005 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are
met:
- Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
- Redistribution in binary form must reproduct the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
Neither the name of Sun Microsystems, Inc. or the names of
contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from
this software without specific prior written permission.
This software is provided "AS IS," without a warranty of any kind. ALL
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED CONDITIONS, REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES,
INCLUDING ANY IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A
PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR NON-INFRINGEMENT, ARE HEREBY EXCLUDED. SUN AND
ITS LICENSORS SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES OR LIABILITIES
SUFFERED BY LICENSEE AS A RESULT OF OR RELATING TO USE, MODIFICATION
OR DISTRIBUTION OF THE SOFTWARE OR ITS DERIVATIVES. IN NO EVENT WILL
SUN OR ITS LICENSORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY LOST REVENUE, PROFIT OR DATA,
OR FOR DIRECT, INDIRECT, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, INCIDENTAL OR
PUNITIVE DAMAGES, HOWEVER CAUSED AND REGARDLESS OF THE THEORY OF
LIABILITY, ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF OR INABILITY TO USE SOFTWARE,
EVEN IF SUN HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
You acknowledge that Software is not designed,licensed or intended for
use in the design, construction, operation or maintenance of any
nuclear facility.
Best Regards,
Antonio Gallardo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: "nuclear facility" clausule in Sun license is compatible?
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
On Sep 9, 2005, at 11:18 AM, Antonio Gallardo wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> This license is basically BSD compatible. The only difference seems
> to be the lastest paragraph that seems to impose a restriction. I
> will like to know if this license should be considered as an Apache
> License compatible license or not.
I think you are showing us an old version of the license. I spent a
lot of time talking to Sun in the last few years about this license,
and since then they have removed the "not licensed for nukes"
restriction. It's not designed, recommended, etc, but they removed
the "not licensed" restriction.
However, the license still has a problem - it generally has a
requirement that we and our users indemnify Sun. it also generally
doesn't allow redistribution of the binary except as a part of a
program that uses it.
Finally, there are many versions of the Sun Binary License. There's
standard boilerplate and always Supplemental Terms. It's important
to figure out what they are.
So, lets be precise - where are you getting this license from?
geir
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Antonio Gallardo.
>
> Here is the full license text:
>
> Copyright (c) 2001-2003 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All Rights
> Reserved.
>
> Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or
> without modification, are permitted provided that the
> following conditions are met:
>
> - Redistributions of source code must retain the above
> copyright notice, this list of conditions and the
> following disclaimer.
>
> - Redistribution in binary form must reproduct the above
> copyright notice, this list of conditions and the
> following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other
> materials provided with the distribution.
>
> Neither the name of Sun Microsystems, Inc. or the names of
> contributors may be used to endorse or promote products
> derived from this software without specific prior written
> permission.
>
> This software is provided "AS IS," without a warranty of any
> kind. ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED CONDITIONS, REPRESENTATIONS
> AND WARRANTIES, INCLUDING ANY IMPLIED WARRANTY OF
> MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR
> NON-INFRINGEMENT, ARE HEREBY EXCLUDED. SUN AND ITS
> LICENSORS SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES OR LIABILITIES
> SUFFERED BY LICENSEE AS A RESULT OF OR RELATING TO USE,
> MODIFICATION OR DISTRIBUTION OF THE SOFTWARE OR ITS
> DERIVATIVES. IN NO EVENT WILL SUN OR ITS LICENSORS BE
> LIABLE FOR ANY LOST REVENUE, PROFIT OR DATA, OR FOR DIRECT,
> INDIRECT, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, INCIDENTAL OR PUNITIVE
> DAMAGES, HOWEVER CAUSED AND REGARDLESS OF THE THEORY OF
> LIABILITY, ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF OR INABILITY TO USE
> SOFTWARE, EVEN IF SUN HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF
> SUCH DAMAGES.
>
> You acknowledge that Software is not designed,licensed or
> intended for use in the design, construction, operation or
> maintenance of any nuclear facility.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
> only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: "nuclear facility" clausule in Sun license is compatible?
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 09/09/05, Antonio Gallardo <an...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi sebb:
>
> Thanks for your answer!
>
> sebb wrote:
>
> >On 09/09/05, Antonio Gallardo <an...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Hi folks,
> >>
> >>This license is basically BSD compatible. The only difference seems to
> >>be the lastest paragraph that seems to impose a restriction. I will like
> >>to know if this license should be considered as an Apache License
> >>compatible license or not.
> >>
> >>Thanks in advance.
> >>
> >>Best Regards,
> >>
> >>Antonio Gallardo.
> >>
> >>Here is the full license text:
> >>
> >>
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >
> >
> >>- Redistribution in binary form must reproduct the above
> >>
> >>
> >
> >"reproduct" ??
> >
> >
> Yep. I just did a "copy&paste". The word is part of the license. I
Just shows that bugs are everywhere ...
> cannot find the word in english dictionary:
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=reproduct
>
> IANAL. I believe they mean something like: reproduced:
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=reproduced
>
Or "reproduce".
> Best Regards,
>
> Antonio Gallardo.
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: "nuclear facility" clausule in Sun license is compatible?
Posted by Antonio Gallardo <an...@apache.org>.
Hi sebb:
Thanks for your answer!
sebb wrote:
>On 09/09/05, Antonio Gallardo <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
>>Hi folks,
>>
>>This license is basically BSD compatible. The only difference seems to
>>be the lastest paragraph that seems to impose a restriction. I will like
>>to know if this license should be considered as an Apache License
>>compatible license or not.
>>
>>Thanks in advance.
>>
>>Best Regards,
>>
>>Antonio Gallardo.
>>
>>Here is the full license text:
>>
>>
>
>[snip]
>
>
>
>>- Redistribution in binary form must reproduct the above
>>
>>
>
>"reproduct" ??
>
>
Yep. I just did a "copy&paste". The word is part of the license. I
cannot find the word in english dictionary:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=reproduct
IANAL. I believe they mean something like: reproduced:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=reproduced
Best Regards,
Antonio Gallardo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: "nuclear facility" clausule in Sun license is compatible?
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 09/09/05, Antonio Gallardo <an...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> This license is basically BSD compatible. The only difference seems to
> be the lastest paragraph that seems to impose a restriction. I will like
> to know if this license should be considered as an Apache License
> compatible license or not.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Antonio Gallardo.
>
> Here is the full license text:
[snip]
> - Redistribution in binary form must reproduct the above
"reproduct" ??
> copyright notice, this list of conditions and the
> following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other
> materials provided with the distribution.
>
[snip]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: "nuclear facility" clausule in Sun license is compatible?
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Friday 09 September 2005 23:18, Antonio Gallardo wrote:
> The only difference seems to
> be the lastest paragraph that seems to impose a restriction. I will like
> to know if this license should be considered as an Apache License
> compatible license or not.
:o) Interesting question.
Besides the amusing nuclear clause (which used to include life-support and
aircraft navigation systems as well IIRC), you have an omnious;
... INCLUDING ANY IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A
PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR ***NON-INFRINGEMENT****, ARE HEREBY EXCLUDED.
Which means that the downstream user have no assurance of patent license, that
the owner may try to enforce later.
I think the lawyers are re-evaluating the position on BSD/MIT licenses due to
this 'exclusion', which can be used to submarine projects.
OTOH, for Java programs there aren't that many JVMs out there to run on, which
doesn't carry this restriction forward, so the user will end up with a
dilemma anyway;
1. Legally break the limitation and use a Sun-backed JVM, or
2. Run on a non-official JVM, which doesn't have such restriction, but
probably (nuclear facility usage is all about probabilities :o) ) not as
well tested and robust as the official JVMs.
Cheers
Niclas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org