<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
Thanks Steve, the withdrawal is noted.<br>
<br>
Pam<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">Pamela Chestek<br>
Chair, License Committee<br>
Open Source Initiative</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
On 6/10/2021 1:11 PM, Steve Pieper wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CADkb7uMCLrm7TgJ8vN8h8Cy+8N4FpqYCrcUjbR_oY20PFHV6Xg@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">Dear Josh and everyone -
<div><br>
</div>
<div>> Your comments on these would be helpful, thanks!</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thank you for taking the time to read through and discuss
the 3D Slicer license in such detail. We have been using the
license in the current form for quite a while and are not
planning to change it, so you haven't heard any feedback from
me about individual discussion points.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Many people have contributed to the 3D Slicer codebase
under the current license terms, some of whom are no longer
living, so I don't believe that editing the license is an
option at this point. Instead we mainly want potential users
of the code to get a clearer understanding of the implications
of adopting the code for their projects (here's a draft of a
statement on that topic: <a
href="https://github.com/Slicer/Slicer/pull/5658/files"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://github.com/Slicer/Slicer/pull/5658/files</a>).
As I mentioned in my first email, our main concern is ensuring
that the high quality open codebase is licensed in a way
that's workable for use in medical products. I believe your
discussion here has been very helpful on that front, so thank
you all!</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>It would have been nice to have the OSI recognize that the
license is consistent with open source, even as a legacy
license not appropriate for us on new projects. But given
your point 1, that the contributor agreement is out of scope
for OSI, it seems we can all agree that the 3D Slicer license
is not a candidate for OSI approval under the existing
processes.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Given that, your point 2 is perhaps moot; but I'll say that
a primary concern for me at least is that people not use the
3D Slicer code base to sell unapproved medical devices that
might be unsafe, ineffective, or otherwise illegal.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Understanding that it's not binding, or even the consensus
opinion, I come away from this discussion feeling that the 3D
Slicer license is actually good for its intended use. I saw
one comment that perhaps Part B alone would be OSI compatible,
and Larry Rosen, who I have met with years ago and whose
writings and opinions I very much respect, went so far as to
say that "I see nothing important in the 3D Slicer License
that would make me worry about using that software as open
source *in conformity with US law*". So it seems we have
gotten everything we could ask for from this process.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If a formal statement is needed, I rescind my request for
approval of the 3D Slicer license, but additional feedback is
always welcome.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Many thanks again for your efforts on these important
topics,</div>
<div>Steve</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Jun 9, 2021 at 8:26 PM
Josh Berkus <<a href="mailto:josh@berkus.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">josh@berkus.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Mr.
Pieper:<br>
<br>
> I'm requesting a review of the 3D Slicer license for
Legacy Approval as <br>
> a Non-Reusable license.<br>
<br>
License-review has had a long discussion of the license[1],
and it does <br>
not look possible to approve it in its current form.<br>
<br>
As this discussion veered off into somewhat of a tangent, let
me <br>
summarize two major blockers discussed with the license to
date:<br>
<br>
1) Bundling the license together with a built-in Contributor
License <br>
Agreement makes it non-approvable<br>
<br>
2) The explicit legal requirement, particularly regarding
export laws, <br>
is one that OSI cannot approve for more than one reason:<br>
<br>
"You further agree to<br>
use, reproduce, make derivative works of, display and
distribute<br>
the Software in compliance with all applicable governmental
laws,<br>
regulations and orders, including without limitation those
relating<br>
to export and import control."<br>
<br>
While there might be other parts of the license still under
discussion, <br>
those are the two major ones that would prevent approval as a
legacy <br>
license.<br>
<br>
Your comments on these would be helpful, thanks!<br>
<br>
[1] <br>
<a
href="http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2021-May/thread.html"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2021-May/thread.html</a><br>
<br>
-- <br>
Josh Berkus<br>
Member of License-Review<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
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
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:License-review@lists.opensource.org">License-review@lists.opensource.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>