Re: CeCILL again...
On Sun, Aug 22, 2004 at 09:11:33PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> 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
>
A) > 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.
>
B) > 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.)
This is clearer in the french version ...
> 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.
Ok, from reading the french version, this reads as :
A) is about code, modified or original, integrated into GPLed software.
In this case the licensee if allowed to redistribute the whole under the
GPL.
B) is about the modified code integrating GPLed software. The licensee is
thus allowed to redistribute the modified code under the GPL.
I think there is a typo in the translation here, and will write to the cecill
folk about this.
> 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
Well, this is also not always the case, and even if most of us read enough
english, we often may lose the subtle nuances of the english tongue. But we
have enough developers of enough countries that in general this should not be
a problem.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: