Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 08:36:10PM -0700, Josh Triplett <josh.trip@verizon.net> wrote: > >>The license also contains many clauses that suggest a belief that the >>license controls _use_ of the software, which has no backing in (US, at >>least) copyright law. While these clauses do not seem to be non-free, >>they do set a bad example. > > One of the goals was to create a license which is compatible with french > law. (It isn't clear whether the GPL is.) Are you referring to the "droit d'auteur" laws? I don't nave a large amount of information about these laws, but I would say that if any jurisdiction grants rights to the author which they cannot license under a Free license, even if they want to, then the jurisdiction is the one with the problem, not the license. Also, note that clause 7 of the GPL requires that the software not be distributed at all, if the ability to grant any of the conditions required by the GPL is restricted for any reason. >>However, all that is most likely a non-issue, given: >> >>>>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. >> >>This clause seems to clearly allow usage of the licensed software under >>the GPL, which would remove any issues of Freeness with the rest of the >>license. > > IANAL, but I'm not sure of this clause. I find it too vague. > 1) "GPL" is never explained. Any license named "GPL" would suit ? Like > the Grr Pfff Lol License ? Interesting point; with the legalistic approach of this license, you would think they would have caught that. I think it is a reasonable assumption that they mean the standard interpretation of "GPL", but this should probably be clarified by CeCILL. > 2) Which version of GPL should be used ? Any ? The current version ? The > current version or any later ? This could cause problems when > integrating CeCILLed software into GPLed apps. That's also a good point. > What do you think of this ? Slightly ambiguous, and probably worth checking with CeCILL about. Hopefully, they will just send a quick clarification saying "of course we mean the GNU General Public License, version 2 or later" (or "version 2 only", which would also be fine). However, from reading the license, I suspect that they may not just issue a "quick clarification", given all the stuff in the license about changes occurring in writing and being signed by both parties. Regardless, the ambiguity you point out could possibly be used to argue that other licenses with the acronym GPL could be used, or that other versions of the GPL could be used, but do you see any interpretation that would not allow the GNU GPL version 2? If not, this shouldn't be a problem. - Josh Triplett
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature