I received the following clarification from our legal people:
The changes to the BSD were intended to remain consistent with the Open Source Definition stated by OSI. As such, the statement about nuclear facilities is a notice and not a restriction per se. The BSD+ also re-states the limitation of liability provision consistent with current law. I don't think any additional interpretation is needed: the clause about nuclear facilities is a notice and not a restriction. Regards, AG On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 01:03:31PM +0600, Dmitry Yu. Bolkhovityanov wrote: > On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Alexander Gelfenbain wrote: > > > I can confirm that the license ST will be released with is "BSD+" which is standard > > BSD with the following clause: > > > > * You acknowledge that this software is not designed, licensed or indended > > * for use in the design, construction, operation or maintenance of any > > * nuclear facility. > > Sorry if it is a stupid question (I'm not a lawyer :), but does > this clause mean that if ST somehow gets into Red Hat, SuSE or some other > distro, we (see my signature) and other high-energy physics labs will have > no legal right to use these distros? > > Can you please ask your legal department to make that statement > more clear? > > TIA, > Dmitry > > _________________________________________ > Dmitry Yu. Bolkhovityanov > The Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics > Novosibirsk, Russia > > > _______________________________________________ > Fonts mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/fonts -- Alexander Gelfenbain, Sun Microsystems, Inc. +1 (408) 635-0612 _______________________________________________ Fonts mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/fonts