Re: New License/Exception Request: BSD-3-Clause-NoNuclear
On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Sam Ellis <Sam.Ellis@...> wrote:
Please consider adding the following license to the SPDX license list:I am not a lawyer and I see several claiming on this list that this
license would not comply with various FLOSS definitions.
But how this extra clause would be a use restriction of any kind?
If I am running a nuclear facility in my backyard and I want to use a
fine piece of code using this license, am I restricted in anyway to do
so by this license?
The way I read this is that I am not restricted at all. I just need to
acknowledge that this was not created for this purpose, whatever this
means practically. And then I can run my power plant happily
thereafter with this code.
So at best this may be an extra warranty disclaimer and warranties are
disclaimed already anyway.
Now there may be other constraints that apply to me outside of this
license: I may be obliged by a regulation or law to use software that
was designed for this nuclear purpose. But this is not part of this
license at all.
So IMHO even in the field of nuclear facilities, there is no direct
usage restriction in *this* license.
Does this make sense legally?
FWIW, this license is recognized by Debian as a BSD and used for
packages in the main archive.