On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 5:16 PM Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> wrote:
* Miro Hrončok:

> Assuming an upstream tarball contains one example file under the BSD
> license with the following usage restriction:
>
>  * You acknowledge that Software is not designed, licensed or intended for
>  * use in the design, construction, operation or maintenance of any nuclear
>  * facility.
>
> Can we rm that nonfree file in %prep, or do we need to strip it from
> the tarball as well?

I think this has been carefully worded so that it does not constitute a
field-of-use restriction.  If I'm correct, this is not in itself a
reason why the license is not acceptable to Fedora.

Here's a similar example:

| […]  THIS SOFTWARE IS NOT DESIGNED OR INTENDED FOR USE OR RESALE AS
| ON-LINE CONTROL EQUIPMENT IN HAZARDOUS ENVIRONMENTS REQUIRING
| FAIL-SAFE PERFORMANCE, SUCH AS IN THE OPERATION OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES,
| AIRCRAFT NAVIGATION OR COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL,
| DIRECT LIFE SUPPORT MACHINES, OR WEAPONS SYSTEMS, IN WHICH THE FAILURE
| OF THE SOFTWARE COULD LEAD DIRECTLY TO DEATH, PERSONAL INJURY, OR
| SEVERE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE ("HIGH RISK ACTIVITIES"). […]

<https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:MIT?rd=Licensing/MIT#Nuclear_Variant>


I think there is a difference between the MIT nuclear example and the BSD one given above - the BSD one said  "...is not designed, licensed or intended..." and the MIT one did not have the word licensed in it (it only said "...IS NOT DESIGNED OR INTENDED..."). It isn't clear to me though if the term "licensed" used in the BSD one means that the code license would forbid its use in the facility (which would be a license restriction), or if they mean it hasn't been licensed by a regulatory authority for use in the facility (which would not be a restriction).

-Ian