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

Lawrence Rosen lrosen at rosenlaw.com
Sat May 19 20:35:59 UTC 2012


Hi Patrick,

 

I went to the www.inria.fr website to find out more about Mr. Moreau and the
CeCILL license. I note that Inria “hosts the first W3C office in France”.
Can we assume that your software license objectives are the same as those of
W3C? If so, can you use the W3C licenses and not create a new one, or can
you work with W3C for a unified new licensing proposal?

 

Otherwise I am concerned that we’re going to have a lot of confusion about
French software licenses translated roughly into English.

 

FWIW, I also serve on the W3C Patents and Standards Working Group and have
worked with W3C before on their copyright and patent licenses. 

 

/Larry

 

Lawrence Rosen

Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm ( <http://www.rosenlaw.com>
www.rosenlaw.com)

3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482

Office: 707-485-1242

 

From: Patrick Moreau [mailto:patrick.moreau at inria.fr] 
Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2012 10:52 AM
To: license-review at opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-review] CeCILL license V2.1 for Approval

 

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/20120519/6080723d/attachment.html>


More information about the License-review mailing list