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

Tue Jun 8 21:04:05 UTC 2021

Thank you, McCoy, for supporting what I said. But it is important to read the rest of the sentence in §15. By its promise, the licensor disclaims any copyright breach claim if the licensee breaks the law. That is a promise, not a condition. It is completely appropriate in a unilateral contract in which only the licensor makes such promises.

Here is how I describe that legal distinction in the OSL/AFL description <http://rosenlaw.com/OSL3.0-explained.htm> :

As a legal document, OSL 3.0 is drafted as a unilateral contract in which the Licensor makes certain promises and accepts certain obligations. In return, any licensee who accepts and uses the software must honor certain conditions. In a formal sense, in unilateral contracts licensees don't make promises, they merely honor conditions, and so you will find no language in OSL 3.0 to the effect that "licensee promises" anything at all. For example, the obligation to publish source code is an obligation of the Licensor, not a licensee. [§ 3] Reciprocity works indirectly: A licensee's right to distribute Derivative Works is conditioned upon licensing those Derivative Works under the same OSL 3.0 license, whereupon that licensee becomes a Licensor obligated by her own promise to publish Source Code. [§§ 1(c), 3]

/Larry

From: McCoy Smith <mccoy at lexpan.law> 
Sent: Tuesday, June 8, 2021 11:55 AM
To: lrosen at rosenlaw.com; License submissions for OSI review <license-review at lists.opensource.org>
Subject: Re: [License-review] request for review of the 3D Slicer License

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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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

 <mailto:pamela at chesteklegal.com> 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

 <mailto:License-review at lists.opensource.org> License-review at lists.opensource.org

 <http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_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 <mailto: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/20210608/71ce2da0/attachment.html>