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

[Josh Berkus]

On 5/28/21 10:03 AM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
>> 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.)
> 

I don't see how we can do that unless the Slicer project itself 
separates out the two documents.  Any approval we grant Part B would be 
taken by the general public as also approving Part A.  And the OSI 
already has precedent that we do NOT approve CLAs.

I don't see the issue with Part C, though?  That's just a jurisdiction 
statement.

-- 
Josh Berkus