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

Tue Jun 8 21:07:24 UTC 2021

Eric Schultz wrote: “I may be interpreting that wrong (IANAL) but if true that would seem to imply the license only applies to legal uses.”

Nobody can license illegal uses of software. … And Simon, I presume this also applies in Thailand.

/Larry

From: Eric Schultz <eric at wwahammy.com> 
Sent: Tuesday, June 8, 2021 1:50 PM
To: lrosen at rosenlaw.com
Cc: License submissions for OSI review <license-review at lists.opensource.org>
Subject: Re: [License-review] request for review of the 3D Slicer License

Larry,

I interpret "such uses" as referring to "all ways not otherwise restricted or conditioned by this License or by law". I may be interpreting that wrong (IANAL) but if true that would seem to imply the license only applies to legal uses.

Eric

On Tue, Jun 8, 2021 at 3:42 PM Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com <mailto:lrosen at rosenlaw.com> > wrote:

Eric: Read the entire provision: “Licensor promises not to interfere with or be responsible for such uses by You.” /Larry

Lawrence Rosen

707-478-8932

3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482

 <mailto:lrosen at rosenlaw.com> lrosen at rosenlaw.com

LinkedIn: Lawrence Rosen

From: Eric Schultz <eric at wwahammy.com <mailto:eric at wwahammy.com> > 
Sent: Tuesday, June 8, 2021 11:01 AM
To: lrosen at rosenlaw.com <mailto:lrosen at rosenlaw.com> ; License submissions for OSI review <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

Larry,

I'm of the opinion that the AFL is not OSD compliant then.

The issue isn't whether the user is legally required to comply with various laws but whether the licensor has an infringement claim against the user if they don't comply with applicable laws. The OSD precludes licenses from making such a claim possible.

I'm honestly surprised this is even a discussion, this seems pretty fundamental to the rights provided by the OSD and the free software definition.

Eric

On Tue, Jun 8, 2021 at 12:44 PM 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 <http://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 <http://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

-- 

Eric Schultz, Developer and FOSS Advocate

wwahammy.com <http://wwahammy.com> 

eric at wwahammy.com <mailto:eric at wwahammy.com> 

@wwahammy

Pronouns: He/his/him

-- 

Eric Schultz, Developer and FOSS Advocate

wwahammy.com <http://wwahammy.com> 

eric at wwahammy.com <mailto:eric at wwahammy.com> 

@wwahammy

Pronouns: He/his/him

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20210608/9d0fd510/attachment-0001.html>