[no subject]
Lewis Jardine wrote:
> > 1) Is it legal?
>
> I can't answer that one (and even if I could, I'd probably be wrong or overlook something).
> If you're planning on using this license for something important, you should probably
> see a contract lawyer with qualifications in French and American law.
>
Oh yes, of course. But it's enough for me to haven't received any notice of a clearly illegal
point, as i'm absolutely not planning an important use for this license.
(Btw., just for information, why do you think American law would be involved here?)
> 2) Is it free?
>
>
> My French is not wonderful, but if 9 does indeed allow relicensing under the GPL in all
> situations, then I think a document under this license would be DFSG-free: it's my
> understanding that as long as a work has one set of terms that is Free, a it is considered
> to be Free, even if it can additionally be licensed under terms which are not.
>
> (Example: GPL's section 3c is non-free, as it forbids commercial redistribution. This
> isn't a problem though, because 3a (which is free) can be used instead).
>
> If it can be GPLed only under certain circumstances, then we have to look at the
> GFDL+permissions license, which I don't think I'm qualified to do.
No, it's allowed in all situations. My main concern about this was that such relicensed copies
could have been considered not free, but undistributable, as the GPL is supposed to apply to
software, not to documents.
>
> > 3) Do you find some concerns into it?
>
> Clause 13 appears to be a mandatory upgrade clause: there doesn't seem to be any way
> to license a work under version 1.0 only. Upgrade clausing in the license is
> comparatively unusual: it's most often seen in asymmetric licenses like the NPL,
> where it can be used to grant additional permissions to the license author that
> they might have forgotten about. Authors may be concerned that the author of this
> license can arbitrarily relicense their works
>
> The more common way of doing an upgradable license is to not mention upgrading in
> the license at all, but rather in the copyright statement for the work; this way
> any author that does not want their work to be upgradable can simply use a different
> copyright statement.
>
> Example: the GPL's suggested statement of '...under the terms of the GNU General
> Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of
> the License, or (at your option) any later version.', which can be replaced by
> '...under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free
> Software Foundation; version 2 of the License only.'
>
Right. I'll fiw this.
Thank you very much!
Emmanuel Colbus
Reply to: