Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ncar!unmvax!nmtsun!nraoaoc
From: nraoaoc@nmtsun.nmt.edu (NRAO Array Operations Center)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: WB 1.3.2
Summary: "no nukes" clause has nothing to do with morality
Keywords: legit?
Message-ID: <3113@nmtsun.nmt.edu>
Date: 7 Sep 89 03:47:01 GMT
References: <14203@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> <7825@cbmvax.UUCP> <6068@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM>
Reply-To: nraoaoc@nmtsun.nmt.edu (NRAO Array Operations Center)
Organization: New Mexico Tech, Socorro NM
Lines: 18

In article <6068@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM> phils@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM (Philip E Staub) writes:
  (many points I have no opinion about)
>
>And as for your previous "explanation" of the implication "no nukes" clause, 
>I don't buy that either. If it applies for international use, it applies to 
>domestic use as well. .... 
                (many more points I have no opinion about) I think the
"not for use to design nuclear weapons" stuff is just part of the
"boilerplate" designed by some lawyer to insure that there is no
collision with export liscensing regulations.  I thought such things
only covered hardware, but, it is sort of unclear.  You can get in big
trouble that can tie things up for years if you run afoul of these
regulations.  So, it seems to me to be an obvious thing for a company
lawyer to write to help justify his existance.
(Sorry if someone already made this point.  I have followed this discussion
sporaticaly, hoping to find out how I can get the update at no cost at with
no effort.)
Pat Palmer