Re: XNAT license terms... any chance for main?

[Ken Arromdee <arromdee@rahul.net>]

On Fri, 3 Jun 2011, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
>    4. The software has been designed for research purposes only and has not
>    been approved for clinical use. It has not been reviewed or approved by the
>    Food and Drug Administration or by any other agency. You acknowledge and agree
>    that clinical applications are neither recommended nor advised.
>
> Since it seems to be just an advisory, I think it should be ok
>
>    5. You are responsible for purchasing any external software that may be
>    required for the proper running of this software. You also agree that you are
>    solely responsible for informing your sublicensees, including without
>    limitation your end-users, of their obligations to secure any such required
>    permissions. You further agree that you are solely responsible for determining
>    and divulging the viral nature of any code included in the software.
>
> ok

It seems like a lot of people disagree with me on this subject, but this
type of clause looks funny to me.  What if someone doesn't want to
acknowledge #4 or agree with #5 but still wants to use the software?  Wouldn't
that prohibit him from doing so?

This sounds like it's asking for payment to use the software with the
payment being "you must acknowledge and agree to things that would make it
harder for you to sue us".  Certainly a direct statement "you can use the
software as long as you never sue us" wouldn't fit the DFSG; why would
an indirect "you can only sue us at a disadvantage" fit them?