For Approval: CeCILL

[Stéphane Dalmas]

> Stéphane Dalmas wrote:
>  
>   > derivative works have to be put under CeCILL. As a special exception, when
>   > a work covered by CeCILL is combined with a work covered by the GNU GPL,
>   > the GNU GPL takes precedence (see clause 5.3.4 of CeCILL). 
> 
> Given that you explicity allow re-licensing under GPL when a CeCILL-licensed
> work is combined with GPL code -- presumably, even with just
> one line of GPL code -- isn't this
> whole exercise a kind of elaborate licensing fiction?  It is apparently easier to
> re-license CeCILL code as GPL than it is to get a divorce in Las Vegas.  ;-)
> 
> May I suggest that it would be more intellectually honest, and more readily
> comprehensible to the world at large, to simply dual-license your code CeCILL/GPL
> from the time of publication?

My opinion is that dual-licensing would be intellectually dishonest ! We 
work hard to provide what could be described as a better GPL-like license. 
And we believe we succeeded. Dual licensing can only be interpreted in this
context (where the two licenses share the same underlying principle) as "we
are not sure at all that CeCILL has any value", so we are bothering you for
nothing at all.

Besides, the fact that you can re-license as GPL does not make CeCILL
useless, as re-licensing does not make BSD-like licenses useless.

As I also mentionned in an earlier answer on this list, the compatibility
clause is a kind of tribute to the work of the FSF and the community that use
and endorse it. 

> I have several comments/questions about specific provisions.
> 
> >        5.3.2 DISTRIBUTION OF MODIFIED SOFTWARE
> > 
> > When the Licensee makes a Contribution to the Software, the terms and
> > conditions for the distribution of the Modified Software become subject
> > to all the provisions of this Agreement.
> >
> > The Licensee is authorized to distribute the Modified Software, in
> > Source Code or Object Code form, provided that said distribution
> > complies with all the provisions of the Agreement and is accompanied by:
> >
> >   1. a copy of the Agreement,
> >
> >   2. a notice relating to the limitation of both the Licensor's
> >      warranty and liability as set forth in Articles 8 and 9,
> 
> > and that, in the event that only the Object Code of the Modified
> > Software is redistributed, the Licensee allows future Licensees
> > unhindered access to the full Source Code of the Modified Software by
> > indicating how to access it, it being understood that the additional
> > cost of acquiring the Source Code shall not exceed the cost of
> > transferring the data.
> 
> This language, and the equivalent language in 5.3.1 about distribution of
> unmodified Software, appears to obligate Licensees to provide source code
> to the world at large, not just to those who received a distribution of the
> binary from the Licensee, for the entire term of the license.  This is much
> broader in scope and potentially much longer in duration
> than the equivalent obligation to provide source code under GPL.

To me, it says that if A does some derivative work that it distributes in
binary form only, and B receives it, B can request the source code. It does
not say anything about a C that would not have received the derivative work
in binary form from A (that C would not be a "future licensee", future
meaning here licensee of A). Of course, C would be able to receive the source
code from B if B ever requests it from A. The GPL may be somehow broader as it
says that A should give a written offer to B to give the source code to any
third party. Which may sound a bit strange as the offer is made to B but it is
valid for a third party, and not public. You are of course correct that there
is no explicit time limitation in CeCILL (compared to 3 years in the GPL).

> >      6.4 JOINT PROVISIONS
> >
> > The Licensee expressly undertakes:
> >
> >   1. not to remove, or modify, in any manner, the intellectual property
> >      notices attached to the Software;
> >
> >   2. to reproduce said notices, in an identical manner, in the copies
> >      of the Software modified or not.
> >
> > The Licensee undertakes not to directly or indirectly infringe the
> > intellectual property rights of the Holder and/or Contributors on the
> > Software and to take, where applicable, vis-à-vis its staff, any and all
> > measures required to ensure respect of said intellectual property rights
> > of the Holder and/or Contributors.
> 
> This obligation not to "directly or indirectly infringe" any IP of the
> Holder and/or Contributors is extremely broad, and seemingly not limited
> to IP as embodied in the Software as received by the Licensee.  

The IPR on the Software is what you would call "copyright" and nothing else
(as for French law software are not patentable and protected by "droit
d'auteur").

> Is this
> intended as a (stealth) defensive termination clause, should the Licensee
> ever enter into any kind of patent/copyright/trade secret/trademark dispute
> with the Holder or Contributors?  If so, it is probably GPL 2-incompatible,
> based on RMS's comments on the defensive termination clauses of MPL, CPL, and
> Apache 2.0. 

I am not sure I understand what you mean. This clause (at least in
the first part, the second part is covering the case where the license is
accepted by an organisation and not by a person) is just trivial. It says
that you have to respect the law as infringing the copyright on the Software
is punished by law. I could rephrase this as: "you (the licensee) can
exercise the rights this license gives you on my software but you shall not
do anything else (that would be infringing my IPR)". 
   
   Stéphane.