For Approval: CeCILL

[Stéphane Dalmas]

> ...
> The "future licensee" terminology is confusing and unnecessary.  One is
> either a Licensee (having accepted a copy of the Software under the terms
> of the license) or one is not.  If you are a Licensee, then the party from
> whom you received the Software either should have given you the source
> code, or offered to give you the source code.  This section can be
> rewritten to convey this concept in a much more direct fashion.

In this case the "future licensee" is not the licensee itself but a licensee
of the licensee. I could certainly rephrase but I am not sure at all that it
would be much better. I seems to me that if one reads it carefully the
meaning is clear enough (for a software license at least). Anyway, we will
certainly take this remark into consideration for the next version of
CeCILL. 

> Please consider placing a time limitation on the obligation to provide
> sources. This is a point of pragmatic interest for those of us in large
> companies who move people and projects around constantly, and for whom the
> three year obligation in GPL is already a significant compliance issue.  An
> obligation to provide source in perpetuity is commercially unacceptable,
> and of dubious value to the community.  How many downloads would there be
> today of the GNU tools circa 1991???

I understand this point. But back in 1991 (and when the corresponding clause
of the GPL was written) the situation was quite different with respect to the
medium used to distribute software. It may have been a problem to provide 
both sources and binaries for very practical reasons but now this is no more
the case (CD, DVD, Web sites with a lot of space, with secured access...). 
For example, just setting up a source distribution and letting the user know
when it gets the binary one how it can be accessed (maybe with some password
on a Web site) is simple and enough to meet the requirement (by not having a
binary only distribution).

This kind of exception is thus much harder to justify. The authors of CeCILL
chose to simplify and to be more consumer/user friendly. To me, the result
seems totally in the spirit of Open Source.

> >> 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").


> If "IPR" in this context really means "copyrights in the Software as
> originally received by the Licensee," then why not just say so?

Because we use "droits de propriété intellectuelle" in the French version and
not "droits d'auteurs". We did that because it is very customary here. Note
that there is no legal problems with this (French law) and this point is
already explained in the English version of our FAQ. 

   Stéphane.