On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Ken Arromdee <[email protected]> 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 warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE." I 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. -PJ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
