[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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

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.


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?

Reply to: