[License-review] request for review of the 3D Slicer License

[McCoy Smith]

The difference being that as an agreement in the license, it is a condition—if breached—that can result in termination or a claim of copyright infringement.
But Larry’s right these sort of license requirements are surplusage; breaking the law is already, well, illegal.

> On Jun 8, 2021, at 10:46 AM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Pam Chestek wrote:
> I agree that the sentence "You further agree to use, reproduce, make derivative works of, display and distribute the Software in compliance with all applicable governmental laws, regulations and orders, including without limitation those relating to export and import control" is a field of use restriction that we have found unacceptable in the past.
>  
> I don’t agree with this. A requirement to obey “applicable” laws is mandatory for every licensor or licensee who wants to stay out of jail. The government will (may!) enforce this provision. Here is AFL 3.0, section 15:
>  
> 15) Right to Use. You may use the Original Work in all ways not otherwise restricted or conditioned by this License or by law, and Licensor promises not to interfere with or be responsible for such uses by You.
>  
> /Larry
>  
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: License-review <license-review-bounces at lists.opensource.org> On Behalf Of Pamela Chestek
> Sent: Monday, June 7, 2021 9:45 PM
> To: license-review at lists.opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-review] request for review of the 3D Slicer License
>  
> On 6/1/2021 1:30 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > On 5/30/21 2:25 PM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> >>> If section B was pulled out, I would recommend that this clause
> >>> should not be an agreement but simply inform the user that such
> >>> obligations may exist.
> >> Oh, good catch! IIRC we have precedence of not allowing such language
> >> considering laws differ between places and may change, and because it
> >> doesn’t belong into a licence anyway.
> > 
> > ... also because, given a lot of the crazy laws out there, it may be
> > impossible to be in compliance with all such laws.
> > 
> I agree that the sentence "You further agree to use, reproduce, make derivative works of, display and distribute the Software in compliance with all applicable governmental laws, regulations and orders, including without limitation those relating to export and import control" is a field of use restriction that we have found unacceptable in the past.
>  
> Pam
>  
> Pamela S. Chestek
> Chestek Legal
> PO Box 2492
> Raleigh, NC 27602
> pamela at chesteklegal.com
> +1 919-800-8033
>  
> _______________________________________________
> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Communication from the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
>  
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at lists.opensource.org
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
> _______________________________________________
> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Communication from the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
> 
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at lists.opensource.org
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20210608/46a46457/attachment.html>