Automatic GPL termination

[Alexander Terekhov]

On 9/12/07, Philippe Verdy <verdy_p at wanadoo.fr> wrote:
[...]
> interpretation for the individual user (that's why the CeCILL licence was
> created as a compatible GPL licence in French immediately enforceable in
> French courts, as it uses French legal terminology).

Really nice that you bring up CeCILL. From CeCILL:

------
Agreement: means this license agreement, and its possible subsequent
versions and annexes.

Software: means the software in its Object Code and/or Source Code form
and, where applicable, its documentation, "as is" when the Licensee
accepts the Agreement.

Initial Software: means the Software in its Source Code and possibly its
Object Code form and, where applicable, its documentation, "as is" when
it is first distributed under the terms and conditions of the Agreement.

Modified Software: means the Software modified by at least one
Contribution.

[...]

Holder: means the holder(s) of the economic rights over the Initial
Software.

Licensee: means the Software user(s) having accepted the Agreement.

Contributor: means a Licensee having made at least one Contribution.

Licensor: means the Holder, or any other individual or legal entity, who
distributes the Software under the Agreement.

[...]

GNU GPL: means the GNU General Public License version 2 or any
subsequent version, as published by the Free Software Foundation Inc.

[...]

5.3.4 COMPATIBILITY WITH THE GNU GPL

The Licensee can include a code that is subject to the provisions of one
of the versions of the GNU GPL in the Modified or unmodified Software,
and distribute that entire code under the terms of the same version of
the GNU GPL.

The Licensee can include the Modified or unmodified Software in a code
that is subject to the provisions of one of the versions of the GNU GPL,
and distribute that entire code under the terms of the same version of
the GNU GPL.
-------

That is, CeCILL simply allows sublicensing under the GPL. How come
that you claim that "[t]here's no sub-licencing scheme in the GPL, the
relations are always directly between the licensee (user of the
covered work) and the original authors"? Care to elaborate? TIA.

regards,
alexander.

--
"PJ points out that lawyers seem to have difficulty understanding the
GPL. My main concern with GPLv3 is that - unlike v2 - non-lawyers can't
understand it either."
                                       -- Anonymous Groklaw Visitor