Re: XNAT license terms... any chance for main?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 04/06/2011 01:26, PJ Weisberg 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
>>> Food and Drug Administration or by any other agency. You acknowledge and
>>> that clinical applications are neither recommended nor advised.
>>> 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
>>> permissions. You further agree that you are solely responsible for
>>> determining and divulging the viral nature of any code included in the software.
> 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
Did you really mean clause #4, or was it a typo for clause # 5?
The rest of your response implies that the 4 was a typo.
Clause 4 probably is legally required, but is it still within the scope
of Libre software?
All emails sent to this with email address with a precedence other than
bulk, or list, are forwarded to Dave Null, unread.
* English - detected
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----