Re: CeCILL again...

[Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>]

You have some very strange mail headers:

From: Nicolas CANIART <caniart.nicolas.no-spam@libertysurf.fr>
Mail-Followup-To: ".no-spam" <caniart.nicolas@libertysurf.fr>,
        debian-legal@lists.debian.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[1] 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.)

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");

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.

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 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.

> [2]: http://www.cecill.info/
> [3]: legal@cecill.info (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.  :)

-- 
Glenn Maynard