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

[Thorsten Glaser]

I think we *really* need to determine what is subject to OSI approval.


Christopher Sean Morrison via License-review dixit:

>I’m not sure what to make of Part A.6 … that feels like a restriction


Josh Berkus dixit:

> Agreed.  Part A is a straight-up CLA, and should be separate from the
> software license.

This.


> If Part B was separated, I don't see any problem with it.

Part B itself says it is the software licence, so if only Part B is
the thing to be OSI approved, I think we’re good. It’s already somewhat
marked as separate due to that… but if OSI reviews Part B, it probably
needs a name if “3D Slicer License” the name of the whole thing. (That
being said, due to the legacy/nōn-reusable approval, we could probably
denote “3D Slicer License, Part B” to be the licence.)

> When I read clause 4, it strikes me as a disclaimer and NOT a
> field-of-use restriction, and disclaimers are 100% acceptable.

Right.


However, the preamble says:

> Part C of this Agreement applies to all transactions with Slicer.

So, is Part C part of the licence or not? Considering recipients
of the software can either get it from Slicer (with Part C) or from
others, under the sublicence right granted (without Part C), this
can be tricky, especially since court designations have not been
looked at favourably recently. (On the other hand this is for legacy
nōn-reusable approval, so the point is probably minor.)

bye,
//mirabilos
-- 
I believe no one can invent an algorithm. One just happens to hit upon it
when God enlightens him. Or only God invents algorithms, we merely copy them.
If you don't believe in God, just consider God as Nature if you won't deny
existence.		-- Coywolf Qi Hunt