I think everyone misunderstood your suggestion as an ethics clause when in reality it's just fluff, as you state later, something to this effect is already ment

I think everyone misunderstood your suggestion as an ethics clause when in reality it's just fluff, as you state later, something to this effect is already mentioned in the warranty clause. But, I should point out: Someone can acknowledge that something is not designed or intended for a certain purpose but then recognize that despite this, it is perfectly suitable for it. i.e. a butter knife is neither designed nor intended for opening paint cans, but it's perfectly suitable for the task (at least some are). Moreover, as software is not often stationary these days, what something is designed or intended for changes over time. Does this clause mean that no patches which intend to make the software explicitly usable in the context of a nuclear facility will ever be accepted? Does everyone sign a document saying: "While writing this patch, I made sure that I didn't accidentally think about nuclear facilities and how this patch may make the software more useful in those contexts." ?