(forwarded by request) -- Glenn Maynard
--- Begin Message ---
- To: Glenn Maynard <email@example.com>
- Subject: Re: CeCILL again...
- From: Nicolas CANIART <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 14:39:22 +0200
- Message-id: <20040823123922.GA6213@caniart.net>
- Reply-to: ".no-spam" <email@example.com>
- In-reply-to: <20040823011133.GL678@zewt.org>
- References: <20040823002600.GC16852@caniart.net> <20040823011133.GL678@zewt.org>On Sun, Aug 22, 2004 at 09:11:33PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > You have some very strange mail headers: > > From: Nicolas CANIART <firstname.lastname@example.org> > Mail-Followup-To: ".no-spam" <email@example.com>, > firstname.lastname@example.org > > If you're trying to prevent your mail address from being posted, > you goofed. :) > > (I doubt that type of thing even works; spammers are stupid, but > I think their dumb scripts are often smart enough these days to take > out "no-spam".) > > On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 02:26:00AM +0200, Nicolas CANIART wrote: > > I've read with interest the thread about the new CeCILL licence. > > But the debian community has not taken a clear position about it yet. > > Since I'd like to know if it is possible to package softwares under that > > licence for debian, I'd like to encourage any action which may lead to > > that. > > The important bit seems to be: > > "5.3.4 COMPATIBILITY WITH THE GPL LICENSE > > In the event that the Modified or unmodified software includes a code > that is subject to the provisions of the GPL License, the Licensee is > authorized to redistribute the whole under the GPL License. > > In the event that the Modified software includes a code that is subject > to the provisions of the GPL License, the Licensee is authorized to > redistribute the Modified software under the GPL License." > > (Yes, the clause repeats itself; I have no idea why.) At http://cecill.info/faq.en.html#clarification parapraph 2, it is said that this is a translation bug and it will be corrected in the "next version" (no date given ...) > > There are several other terms which are highly questionable, many of > which were brought up, but as long as this clause is working properly, > this is DFSG-free (as is any license that allows redistribution under > the GPL). > > I'd tend to suggest that the GPL option be exercised directly: add a > bit of GPL code to the package and distribute only under 5.3.4, to > avoid this ugly license. > > The only standing issues that have been raised are: > > 1: get clarification that "GPL" really does mean the "GNU General Public > License", and which version ("any version", "version 2 or later", "version > 2 only"). (They define several terms used in the license, but they > don't define "GPL"); It is also explained in the FAQ, but of course I don't think the FAQ has any legal value :-\ GPL="It is the GNU General Public License in its current version at the time of the writing of CeCILL, i.e. version 2." > > 2: make sure that the French language version of this clause has no > problems. You'll need to find somebody who can read French legalese. I do speak french, but actually not the same as french lawyers :), but I may be able to find some help... > > This is also a more general issue: how do we deal with licenses that we > can't read, in the general case? We assume that Debian users can read > English If english/american laws are written with the same french as french laws are, assuming that is a bit hazardous IMHO. Personnaly i speak enough english to understand and use software but I'm not shure I could dodge all text laws language tricks. This is what, in fact, has impulsed my first message. I though that having a license in french may allow more (french-speaking) people to have confidence in the license under which they place their softwares (or the software they use is placed). But of course this may not solve the problem. You place your software under a specific license for each country or language it is susceptible to be exported (and new questions raise : Is this legal ? Everywhere ? :$ ). But our goal is to make free software rule the world :). And initiatives such as CeCILL may make developers more confident in Free Software License (it is CeCILL claimed aim). So if and organisms like the FSF and Debian say "This is free, you can use it !" users may be more confident in that licence even if they don't understand the language it is written in... Note that FSF has not statued on the CeCILL freeness and GPL compatibility... even if CeCILL authors claim it is. > well enough to understand license grants, but we can't assume > they understand French or other languages, too, and neither d-legal > nor the ftpmasters can review such licenses properly--not just for > freeness, but for legal distribution. Even if we have one or two > people who can read a given language fluently, the license still won't > receive anything approaching the level of scrutiny it would receive > with the whole list able to read it. > > As for me, I wouldn't use this software unless they replaced "the event > of a conflict as regards construction, the French version shall be deemed > authentic" (which essentially means that the English version is entirely > questionable and unauthorative) with "both versions shall be deemed authentic" > (that is, dual-license under both terms, if the terms differ). If I can't > read my rights, I don't know them, even if somebody fluent in the language > claims I'm safe. > > > : http://www.cecill.info/ > > : email@example.com (http://www.cecill.info/contacts.en.html) > > I'd suggest that you send the results of any discussions to them yourself, > if you think they'd be interested; you'll have better luck with that than > asking us to send blind emails to people we know nothing about. :) I don't know them much more than you... :) But I'll try. I'll begin by reading in deep the french and english texts, then gather the questions raised in previous thread and the ones I would have found and finally try to see what answers we can get from them... this may take a while. Please be a bit patient. I'll keep an eye on the list, so please don't hesitate to make any suggestions. Cordially, Nicolas CANIART.
Description: Digital signature
--- End Message ---