Automatic GPL termination

[Philippe Verdy]

Here ag€ain, CeCILl does not define the operation as "sublicensing". It defines the way by which a combined work can be licenced while preserving the original licence from initial authors directly to the downstream users.
There's no reassignment of the right holder, so this is not sublicencing. The initial licence remains valid on the part of the distribution that was written by the original authors.

Look at the definition of "agreement" (French law requires/mandates naming the involved parties to such an agreement, because licences are considered contracts in French law, and contracts must name all the interested parties that bound to the terms of the contract, so that no one else can infer in case of a litigation).

Look at how it carefully speaks about the original authors, and "first distribution"...

CeCILL describes licensees, not sub-licensees, and makes no hierarchical distinctions between them. The agreement remains direct between original authors and all other users, whatever their source distributor.

Note also that such licence in French requires an agreement by the user, otherwise the contract is void. The only way to use a CecILL-covered software legally is by accepting the agreement and becoming a party to the contract. "Implicit agreements" are completely illegal in French law, and that's a very important thing to protect consumer rights, and the fact that all interested parties MUST be named is also a clear advantage of the French law regarding licenses and all contracts, this really helps in case of litigation as it facilitate defending cases (note that group actions are still not allowed in France, and will be allow to create here, unless one can prove that users are bound to the same contract against exactly the same parties).

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Alexander Terekhov [mailto:alexander.terekhov at gmail.com]
> Envoyé : mercredi 12 septembre 2007 22:12
> À : verdy_p at wanadoo.fr
> Cc : Chris Travers; John Cowan; lrosen at rosenlaw.com; dlw; license-
> discuss at opensource.org
> Objet : Re: Automatic GPL termination
> 
> 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.