jms@tardis.Tymnet.COM (Joe Smith) (09/04/89)
In article <19682@usc.edu> papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes:
[Quoting the license agreement for WB1.3.2]
: 3. You agree and certify that you will not use, ship,
: transfer, or reexport any Software or other technical data, or any
: direct product thereof, related to any commodity that will be used
: directly or indirectly in the following activities (or in the
: training of personnel for such activities), whether or not it is
: specifically designed or modified for such activities;
:
: (i) designing, developing, fabricating or
: testing nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices;
: (ii) designing, constructing, fabricating, or
: operating the following facilities, or components for
: such facilities;
: (a) the chemical processing or irradiated
: special nuclear or source material;
: (b) the production of heavy water;
: (c) the separation of isotopes of source
: and special nuclear material;
: (d) the fabrication of nuclear reactor fuel
: containing plutonium.
Gee, it looks like items 3.ii.a through 3.ii.c include Stanford's Linear
Accelerator Center and other respected institutions. Does this mean that
Willy Langeveld and the others at SLAC are not allowed to use WorkBench
1.3.2? What about "special nuclear material" used in hospital X-rays and
certain pacemakers?
There are many things that belong in a software license, but nuclear
posturing is not one of them.
--
Joe Smith (408)922-6220 | SMTP: JMS@F74.TYMNET.COM or jms@tymix.tymnet.com
McDonnell Douglas FSCO | UUCP: ...!{ames,pyramid}!oliveb!tymix!tardis!jms
PO Box 49019, MS-D21 | PDP-10 support: My car's license plate is "POPJ P,"
San Jose, CA 95161-9019 | narrator.device: "I didn't say that, my Amiga did!"riley@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (Daniel S. Riley) (09/04/89)
In article <559@tardis.Tymnet.COM> jms@tardis.Tymnet.COM (Joe Smith) writes: >In article <19682@usc.edu> papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: > [Quoting the license agreement for WB1.3.2] >: 3. You agree and certify that you will not use, ship, >: transfer, or reexport any Software or other technical data, or any >: direct product thereof, related to any commodity that will be used >: directly or indirectly in the following activities (or in the >: training of personnel for such activities), whether or not it is >: specifically designed or modified for such activities; [...] >: (ii) designing, constructing, fabricating, or >: operating the following facilities, or components for >: such facilities; >: (a) the chemical processing or irradiated >: special nuclear or source material; >: (b) the production of heavy water; >: (c) the separation of isotopes of source >: and special nuclear material; >: (d) the fabrication of nuclear reactor fuel >: containing plutonium. >Gee, it looks like items 3.ii.a through 3.ii.c include Stanford's Linear >Accelerator Center and other respected institutions. Does this mean that >Willy Langeveld and the others at SLAC are not allowed to use WorkBench >1.3.2? What about "special nuclear material" used in hospital X-rays and >certain pacemakers? Assuming that 3.ii.a is supposed to be "chemical processing *of* irradiated special nuclear or source material", I don't belive that SLAC violates any of those restrictions. Generally, high energy physics labs do not process (chemically or mechanically) irradiated material if they can possibly avoid it. They don't produce heavy water. And they don't separate isotopes or other nuclear material. The only irradiated material I would expect SLAC to deal with would be small radioactive sources used for calibration purposes (not processed or produced by SLAC), and material which has been irradiated by long exposure to the electron beams (which they should avoid processing as much as possible). X-Ray machines don't use nuclear material. As for nuclear powered devices, the restrictions only apply to whoever fabricates the power supply itself, which wouldn't normally be a medical facility. The only exception I can think of offhand would be chemical processing to create particular molecules with radioactive isotopes for tracing purposes. Finally, this may not be a political statement. Lots of insurance policies explicitly exclude nuclear accidents, so C-A may be specifically excluding use of their software in the operation of nuclear facilities on the advice of their lawyers, not their consciences, in order to limit their liability. claimer: I used to work at SLAC when I was in High School, and I'm currently a graduate student at a high energy physics lab that does similar sorts of stuff. If we used Amigas here, I don't believe that we would have any problems with that section of the license. -Dan Riley (riley@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu, cornell!batcomputer!riley) -Wilson Lab, Cornell U.
sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) (09/06/89)
jms@tardis.Tymnet.COM (Joe Smith) writes: |In article <19682@usc.edu> papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: | [Quoting the license agreement for WB1.3.2] |: 3. You agree and certify that you will not use, ship, |: transfer, or reexport any Software or other technical data, or any |: direct product thereof, related to any commodity that will be used |: directly or indirectly in the following activities (or in the |: training of personnel for such activities), whether or not it is |: specifically designed or modified for such activities; What I would do is scratch out the parts of the agreement that I don't agree with before I open the package. Then either (a) the software manufacturer can abide by my terms or (b) they can declare the license invalid, in which case I haven't agreed to anything. Since I have a legally purchased copy, I'm not bound by their agreement, only by normal copyright conventions. I'd bet a paycheck that it would stand up in court, too. Sean -- *** Sean Casey sean@ms.uky.edu, sean@ukma.bitnet, ukma!sean *** Copyright 1989 by Sean Casey. Only non-profit redistribution permitted. *** ``Why can't anything be as simple as following the instructions???'' -me
dillon@POSTGRES.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) (09/11/89)
I always thought commodore was being silly anyway. You know if they
simply released the source to all the workbench support, including all
the devices, libraries, etc.... things would get fixed a lot faster.
Ah well... :-)
-Matt