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

[Patrick Moreau]

Dear everybody
Thank you again to deeply analyse our last proposal.

*In section 6.4 ("JOINT PROVISIONS"):*
We confirm that 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". But we understand that 
our sentence could be clearer if we write the intellectual property 
rights on the Software as below:
/"The Licensee undertakes not to directly or indirectly infringe the 
intellectual property rights on the Software of the Holder and/or 
Contributors  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."/
Then, it is clear that it is on the software, and not around the 
software. Trademark is on the name and patent is on the invention.

Patrick



Le 07/04/2012 00:36, Simon Phipps a écrit :
> 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.
>
> Thanks,
>
> S.
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at opensource.org
> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20120519/d0fdfa6d/attachment.html>