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

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

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Ken Arromdee <arromdee@rahul.net> wrote:
> 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?

I've seen plenty of software in Debian with a clause similar to #4,
usually phrased something like "$foo is distributed in the hope that
it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied
don't see how it could make a difference that this license names one
particular purpose that the authors don't guarantee that the software
is fit for.

What does the hypothetical person who doesn't want to agree to #5
want?  He wants to use the software, and he also wants the software's
original author to purchase for him any other software that it
requires, and inform his sub-licensees of the need for such software
(by some other method than letting them read the license)?

I don't know what the software does or anything about the "viral
nature" that you're supposed to determine and divulge, but the rest of
what you quoted seems like a more verbose version of some pretty
standard disclaimers.


Reply to: