Re: ITP: ssreflect -- small scale reflection extension for the Coq proof assistant
"MJ Ray" <mjr@phonecoop.coop> wrote:
I think we've consensus on software that uses CeCILL (upgradeable to
GPL, so meets DFSG) and we've discussed CeCILL-C, but what do we think
of B? My searches didn't find much discussion of it here, or any
packages in the archive using it yet. A copy follows. Please cc the
bug report on relevant replies.
My concerns are the infinitely-recursive definition of "Software" in
1, deemed acceptance of the licence by downloading (possibly before
seeing the licence) in 3.1, the disconnected advertising requirement
in 5.3.4.3 and the choice of Paris as venue in 13.2. There seems no
obvious GPL-upgrade escape route this time.
5.1 RIGHT OF USE
The Licensee is authorized to use the Software, without any limitation
as to its fields of application, with it being hereinafter specified
that this comprises:
1. permanent or temporary reproduction of all or part of the Software
by any or all means and in any or all form.
2. loading, displaying, running, or storing the Software on any or
all medium.
3. entitlement to observe, study or test its operation so as to
determine the ideas and principles behind any or all constituent
elements of said Software. This shall apply when the Licensee
carries out any or all loading, displaying, running, transmission
or storage operation as regards the Software, that it is entitled
to carry out hereunder.
Right to use, copy, and reverse engineer (that last one seems odd
since any work under this license would come with source code).
Good so far.
5.2 ENTITLEMENT TO MAKE CONTRIBUTIONS
The right to make Contributions includes the right to translate, adapt,
arrange, or make any or all modifications to the Software, and the right
to reproduce the resulting software.
The Licensee is authorized to make any or all Contributions to the
Software provided that it includes an explicit notice that it is the
author of said Contribution and indicates the date of the creation thereof.
This is a right of modification, although it is VERY poorly worded,
due to the choice of the word contributions, when in fact the changes may
be under a license that does not allow for the Licensor to integrate these
"contributions" upstream.
The changelog requirement requirement here is of course fine.
The plain text here strongly implies that a pseudonym is sufficent
for identification.
5.3 RIGHT OF DISTRIBUTION
In particular, the right of distribution includes the right to publish,
transmit and communicate the Software to the general public on any or
all medium, and by any or all means, and the right to market, either in
consideration of a fee, or free of charge, one or more copies of the
Software by any means.
Nothing but a clarification of what distribution entails. Commerical
distribution is clearly allowed wherever distribution is allowed,
and there are no restristions on the publication medium.
The Licensee is further authorized to distribute copies of the modified
or unmodified Software to third parties according to the terms and
conditions set forth hereinafter.
The words "further authorized" here should be scrapped, as it makes it
sound like the previous paragraph is actually authorizing something, when
in fact it is not.
5.3.1 DISTRIBUTION OF SOFTWARE WITHOUT MODIFICATION
The Licensee is authorized to distribute true copies of the Software in
Source Code or Object Code form, provided that said distribution
complies with all the provisions of the Agreement and is accompanied by:
1. a copy of the Agreement,
2. a notice relating to the limitation of both the Licensor's
warranty and liability as set forth in Articles 8 and 9,
and that, in the event that only the Object Code of the Software is
redistributed, the Licensee allows effective access to the full Source
Code of the Software at a minimum during the entire period of its
distribution of the Software, it being understood that the additional
cost of acquiring the Source Code shall not exceed the cost of
transferring the data.
The terms on distribution of unmodified sources are trivially Free.
5.3.2 DISTRIBUTION OF MODIFIED SOFTWARE
If the Licensee makes any Contribution to the Software, the resulting
Modified Software may be distributed under a license agreement other
than this Agreement subject to compliance with the provisions of Article
5.3.4.
Ok, modified versions may be reliced under any license at all as long as the
following
conditions are met:
5.3.4 CREDITS
Any Licensee who may distribute a Modified Software hereby expressly
agrees to:
1. indicate in the related documentation that it is based on the
Software licensed hereunder, and reproduce the intellectual
property notice for the Software,
Your modified version must include a note in a documentation.
Presumably putting the notice near any other copyright notices,
would qualify, so if such notices are in a sereate peice of
documentation, putting this notice there, and not in the main
documentation is fine. (A.K.A. a LICENCES file or README, or
something of the sort, that gets included even with the binary only
distributions.
2. ensure that written indications of the Software intended use,
intellectual property notice and license hereunder are included in
easily accessible format from the Modified Software interface,
You must have some interface for displaying copyright notices,
which must be reasonably easy to access. This is not unlike the
obnoxious clause in the GPL, which has a similar requirement
if the program already had such an interface.
3. mention, on a freely accessible website describing the Modified
Software, at least throughout the distribution term thereof, that
it is based on the Software licensed hereunder, and reproduce the
Software intellectual property notice,
Yuck. This requires you post a message to a website.
This requirement if also required to be required by the new License,
would make this GPL-incompatible, and possibly non-free.
4. where it is distributed to a third party that may distribute a
Modified Software without having to make its source code
available, make its best efforts to ensure that said third party
agrees to comply with the obligations set forth in this Article .
If the new license is non-copyleft if must require conditions equivelent to
this section
of this license. There is no such requirement if the new licence is
copyleft.
That means that if you modify the source, you can convert it
to GPL. This may be either intended, or due to sloppy drafting,
but never the less, the licenses allows relicencing to any
copyleft license upon distribution of modified versions, since
it places no requirements upon the terms of licence for the modified
version if that licence is copyleft.
5.3.5 COMPATIBILITY WITH THE CeCILL AND CeCILL-C LICENSES
Where a Modified Software contains a Contribution subject to the CeCILL
license, the provisions set forth in Article 5.3.4 shall be optional.
A Modified Software may be distributed under the CeCILL-C license. In
such a case the provisions set forth in Article 5.3.4 shall be optional.
A modified version may be wholesale relicenced under CeCILL-C.
If CeCILL-C is free then this licenc can be converted to a free licence,
by modifying the software, and distributing the modifications.
Conclusion:
Possibly due to poor drafting it looks like it is in fact GPL compatible.
This just shows that drafting your own Free Software license is not a good
idea, even if you if have many lawyers to assist. It is also possible it is
intended to be GPL compatible. It would be nice to hear what the licence
drafters had intended With resect to GPL compatibility. If they intended it
to be compatible, then that is all that is important, since the wording does
indeed seem to allow it.
IANAL, IANADD
Reply to: