Subject: Re: testing kit conformance as a condition of distribution
From: Chris F Clark <cfc@theworld.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 17:00:25 -0400 (EDT)

Hmmm, curious responses to something I would have seen as an attempt
at a "field of endeavor" control.  While it does not explicitly
restrict the use of the software in such instances, it still could
have that effect, since most workers in such fields are required to
get "bonds" that guarantee the quality of their work, and such bonds
require reasonable professional standards to be met, and using
something that is explicitly not designed to be used in that context
would seem to violate those professional standards.  

Isn't that the whole problem with million-$ hammers and the likes,
that they have been certified to be useful under the exact conditions
where one cares about the outcome (e.g. working on a space ship or a
nuclear power plant or a bio-weapons lab), where if the tool isn't
designed to precise specs and the tool fails as a result the results
are catastrophic.

Isn't the requirement of such an acknowledgement in the license to use
the tool, thus an ipso facto restriction against the tools use in such
circumstances.  If I lived in the area affected by a nuclear power
plant and found that one of its contractors was using a tool that they
freely acknowledged as inappropriate to the task, I would be certainly
interested in joining the class-action suit against said contractor.

-Chris
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3