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

Mon May 21 17:37:25 UTC 2012

Hi Larry

INRIA was in fact the second host of the W3C, after MIT. But we are no 
more and CeCILL has nothing to do with W3C or any W3C efforts. The main 
goal of CeCILL is to provide an Open Source license with a high legal 
quality and it is achieved by choosing  a particular law. I'm sure you 
understand very well the importance of having a strong legal basis. But 
I'm not sure what you meant by your comment on "licenses translated 
roughly into English". As you noticed the license is available in both 
English and French with "both versions deemed authentic". Any 
suggestions you may have to improve the English version are of course 
welcome (we did work with native English speaking lawyers to prepare the 
current version).

Patrick

Le 19/05/2012 22:35, Lawrence Rosen a écrit :
>
> Hi Patrick,
>
> I went to the www.inria.fr <http://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 (www.rosenlaw.com 
> <http://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  <mailto: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/20120521/c5192bb4/attachment.html>