[License-review] CeCILL license V2.1 for Approval

Simon Phipps webmink at gmail.com
Fri Apr 6 22:36:51 UTC 2012

On 5 Apr 2012, at 16:42, BAYLE Anne-sophie 174294 wrote:
>> -----Message d'origine-----
>> * In section 6.4 ("JOINT PROVISIONS"), it says:
>>  "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 is very broad, and (in English) will apply to trademark rights
>>  and patent rights.  Is it necessary?  There is much disagreement in
>>  the software world about patents, and I don't see why Licensee should
>>  have to go beyond whatever laws already govern it by default.  In
>>  other words, what is this clause for?
> The sentence applies to the IPR on the Software as defined by the license. It thus 
> does not cover trademarks or patents. Patents are treated specifically, see Article 5".

So which "intellectual property rights" do you mean apart from copyright? If two of the three main items usually understood under the term are excluded, it would be better not to use the term at all and to be clear what you're talking about. 

>> * Similarly, 6.2 ("OVER THE CONTRIBUTIONS") seems redundant:
>>  "The Licensee who develops a Contribution is the owner of the
>>   intellectual property rights over this Contribution as defined by
>>   applicable law."
>>  What concern does this address?
> Yes it's perhaps a little redundant but sometimes it could be a good thing notably to make this license understandable by everybody.

Once again, it's unhelpful as it uses a vague term in a general way.

In both cases, I would very much prefer the term "intellectual property" to be replaced with the rights you are actually addressing. 



More information about the License-review mailing list