<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-GB link=blue vlink=purple style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>I think the discussion is about the 3D Slicer license and whether it violates OSD. And I think Larry is saying, “yes, it does.” <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>[He’s also saying AFL doesn’t, and gives his analysis why, which is an interesting analytical point but given that AFL is OSI-approved, I’m not sure it’s one that is worth debating?]<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>[Anyone who is interested in Larry’s detailed rationale on why his licenses were drafted the way they are should read his book, which is available free as in beer here: <a href="http://rosenlaw.com/pdf-files/Rosen_Ch09.pdf">http://rosenlaw.com/pdf-files/Rosen_Ch09.pdf</a> ]<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt'><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-US> License-review <license-review-bounces@lists.opensource.org> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Lawrence Rosen<br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, June 9, 2021 4:35 PM<br><b>To:</b> 'Pamela Chestek' <pamela.chestek@opensource.org>; 'License submissions for OSI review' <license-review@lists.opensource.org><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [License-review] [License-discuss] request for review of the 3D Slicer License<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>This is a follow-up to the discussion about the difference between the SD Slicer license and the AFL/OSL. Since we’re hopefully still talking about legal issues, Pam’s statement below is simply wrong:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><span lang=EN-US>The two clauses are similar in that neither states whether the requirement is a condition of the license or what the consequences are when there is a use of the software for an unlawful purpose. <br><br>SD Slicer: "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."<br>AFL/OSL: "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."<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>The clauses are NOT similar! The first forms a bilateral contract with a reciprocal condition (“you further agree…”), the other is part of a unilateral contract (“the Licensor promises….”) In my license, intentionally, <u>only</u> the licensor makes promises! Among the licensor promises in my license is that restricted or illegal uses are not the responsibility of the licensor, and this provision is expressly NOT a license condition to which the licensee agrees. In the AFL/OSL, It is the licensee’s own responsibility to obey the law, at its own risk.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>/Larry<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div></div></body></html>