Re: CeCILL again...
On Sun, Aug 22, 2004 at 09:29:13PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> In the original French, the first sentence grants permission to *add*
> GPLed code to the work and distribute the combination under the
> terms of the GPL, and the second sentence grants others permission to
> continue distributing the combination under the GPL.
Perhaps, if we have cause to contact CeCILL about this license, whoever
does so might consider pointing out this translation issue. (I won't
bother to do so just for this, though.)
> My reading of Article 3 of CeCILL is that acceptance of this license is
> a condition of using the software. (The original French version of the
> license doesn't seem to contradict this reading.) As such, this seems
> to be a restriction on use, which I think is contrary to the DFSG.
>
> The clause allowing redistribution under the GPL only applies to
> *redistribution*, and does not seem to address the EULA aspect (since
> the GPL, of course, is not an EULA). Though if we're distributing under
> the terms of the GPL, I suppose we needn't ask users to accept the
> license upon downloading, either?
That's just it: if the GPL clause is "working", then we have to be able
to; otherwise it'd be an additional restriction, which is in conflict
with the GPL, and the clause is useless. (If it doesn't work, this
license is also GPL-incompatible.)
It's not quite safe to assume that the authors' intentions were for it
to work, because it's possible that they don't actually understand the
GPL--not understanding its "no more restrictions" clause, for example--in
which case their intent is only to allow conversion to what they think
the GPL means. This could be the case if they believe that you still
have to accept this license, even when "distributing under the terms
of the GPL".
However, this license is an EULA, and I (and probably the list in general)
have very little experience with EULAs and real contract licenses; I'm
not qualified to answer this question even to my own satisfaction.
> Agreed; I think at a minimum we need either a legally-binding license in
> English, or an English translation vouched for by someone debian-legal
> subscribers are willing to trust, to be able to make any determination
> that a license is DFSG-free.
But we have a few goals: for us to be able to determine that it's DFSG-free;
for us to be able to determine that Debian and its mirrors can safely
distribute it even if so (eg. license compatibility); and for users to
be able to know and understand what they can do to a given work. I'd
be willing, for example, to trust others to the first, since it doesn't
put me in actual risk; but I'd be much slower to trust others to the
rest, since an error can cause me to violate the license.
Generally, I'd only personally accept the former (a legally-binding license
in English) before distributing modifications to a program. I want to be
able to read my rights for myself. (I'm not a lawyer, so I might mess up
and read it wrong, but at least it'd be my own fault.)
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: