On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 16:19:57 -0700 Josh Triplett wrote:
> Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
[...]
> > Alex Hudson <home@alexhudson.com> was able to find the english
> > version of the license. It's here :
> >
> > http://www.inria.fr/valorisation/logiciels/Licence.CeCILL-V1.US.pdf
>
> For ease of quoting and commentary, here is a text version, converted
> using pdftotext along with some manual reformatting.
This is very much appreciated, TNX!
[...]
> FREE SOFTWARE LICENSING AGREEMENT CeCILL
>
> Notice
[...]
> Version 1 of 06/21/2004
>
> CeCILL License
>
> PREAMBLE
[...]
> In this respect, the user's attention is drawn to the risks associated
> with loading, using, modifying and/or developing or reproducing the
> software by the user in light of its specific status of free software,
> that may mean that it is complicated to manipulate, and that also
> therefore means that it is reserved for developers and experienced
> professionals having in-depth IT knowledge.
I don't like this warning very much. It seems to strengthen the "free
software is for techies only" misconception: IMHO free software is for
anyone who is willing to appreciate it!
But anyway...
[...]
> This Agreement
> may be freely reproduced and published, provided it is not altered,
> and that no Articles are either added or removed herefrom.
So you cannot create derivative licenses based on this one.
[...]
> Version 1 of 06/21/2004
>
> CeCILL License
>
> Article 1 -- DEFINITION
[...]
> Source Code: means all the Software's instructions and program lines
> to which access is required so as to modify the Software.
This looks like a weak definition of source code: what is *required* so
as to modify a program written in C?
Someone could argue that the C source files are not *required*, since
you can modify the program starting from the executable: you only have
to use a disassembler, a text editor and an assembler...
Therefore, someone could claim he/she is distributing "Source Code",
while he/she is actually passing on a binary only package...
[...]
> Article 3 -- ACCEPTANCE
>
> 3.1. The Licensee shall be deemed as having accepted the terms and
> conditions of this Agreement by the occurrence of the first of the
> following events:
>
> - (i) loading the Software by any or all means, notably, by
> downloading from a remote server, or by loading from a physical
> medium;
So I accept the license as soon as I download the package.
Even if I haven't had *any* opportunity to read it in advance? :-/
>
> - (ii) the first time the Licensee exercises any of the rights granted
> hereunder.
This is pretty similar to the GPL, instead...
>
> 3.2. One copy of the Agreement, containing a notice relating to the
> specific nature of the Software, to the limited warranty, and to the
> limitation to use by experienced users has been provided to the
> Licensee prior to its acceptance as set forth in Article 3.1
> hereinabove, and the Licensee hereby acknowledges that it is aware
> thereof.
This is not clear to me. Is it a requirement? "One copy of the Agreement
[...] has been provided to the Licensee [...]" seems a factual
statement, not a permission, nor a condition...
Does it mean that a distributor must make sure that recipients read the
license and acknowledge their awareness, *before* events (i) or (ii)
from Article 3.1 occur?
> 4.2. TERM
>
> The Agreement shall remain in force during the whole legal term of
> protection of the economic rights over the Software.
Until copyright expires, right?
[...]
> Article 5 -- SCOPE OF THE RIGHTS GRANTED
[...]
> Otherwise, the Licensor grants to the Licensee free of charge
> exploitation rights on the patents he holds on whole or part of the
> inventions implemented in the Software.
IIUC, this a copyright *and* patent license at the same time...
[...]
> 5.2. ENTITLEMENT TO MAKE CONTRIBUTIONS
>
> The right to make Contributions includes the right to translate,
> adapt, arrange, or make any or all modification to the Software, and
> the right to reproduce the resulting Software.
>
> The Licensee is authorized to make any or all Contribution to the
> Software provided that it explicitly mentions its name as the author
> of said Contribution and the date of the development thereof.
This seems similar to the GPL#2a, but it says explicitly that the
Contributor's name must be mentioned. Would a pseudonym suffice?
Does this pass the dissident test?
[...]
> 5.3.3. REDISTRIBUTION OF DYNAMIC MODULES
>
> When the Licensee has developed a Dynamic Module, the terms and
> conditions hereof do not apply to said Dynamic Module, that may be
> distributed under a separate Licensing Agreement.
This seems somewhat similar to the LGPL (lack of) conditions for
linking.
>
> 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 second clause seems a redundant repetition of a part of the
previous one... :-?
Moreover, I think it should say explicitly "the GNU General Public
License as published by the Free Software Foundation" and specify one or
more versions.
> Article 6 -- INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
>
> 6.1. OVER THE INITIAL SOFTWARE
>
> The Holder owns the economic rights over the Initial Software. Any or
> all use of the Initial Software is subject to compliance with the
> terms and conditions under which the Holder has elected to distribute
> its work and no one shall be entitled to modify the terms and
> conditions for the distribution of said Initial Software.
This seems to be a NOOP...
>
> The Holder undertakes to maintain the distribution of the Initial
> Software under the conditions of the Agreement, for the duration set
> forth in article 4.2.
Do I understand this correctly?
The Holder guarantees he/she will go on distributing the Initial
Software until copyright expires: that's really a long time... :-?
[...]
> 10.2. The Licensee whose Agreement is terminated shall no longer be
> authorized to use, modify or distribute the Software.
If the license is terminated for me, I lose even the right to *use* the
Software. Is it possible, under copyright law (assuming there are no
software patents or trademarks to be exploited)?
[...]
> 13.1. The Agreement is governed by French law.
Choice of law, this is OK.
> The Parties agree to endeavor to settle the disagreements or
> disputes that may arise during the performance of the Agreement
> out-of-court.
>
> 13.2. In the absence of an out-of-court settlement within two (2)
> months as from their occurrence, and unless emergency proceedings are
> necessary, the disagreements or disputes shall be referred to the
> Paris Courts having jurisdiction, by the first Party to take action.
This seems to be a choice of venue, that is *not* OK.
Correct me, if I'm wrong.
--
| GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 | $ fortune
Francesco | Key fingerprint = | Q: What is purple
Poli | C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 | and commutes?
| 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 | A: A boolean grape.
Attachment:
pgpoCHG12P5JM.pgp
Description: PGP signature