[License-review] International Licenses: Québec Free and Open-Source Licence (LiLiQ)

Richard Fontana fontana at sharpeleven.org
Fri Dec 18 16:07:56 UTC 2015

Thank you Simon.

Given that there seem to be no further questions or concerns from the
license-review community, I will recommend to the OSI board that the
three LiLiQ licenses be approved.


On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 05:14:43PM +0000, Simon.Johnson-Begin at cspq.gouv.qc.ca wrote:
> Hi Richard,
> >In English, saying that the *exercise* of certain previously-described
> >granted rights is "subject to" something would (I think) ordinarily
> >suggest that you are limiting the grant of rights in some way. That
> >does not appear to be the case here. I assume that "sujet à" here is
> >specifically intended to give rise to a contractual remedy against the
> >licensor who fails to provide source code (which seems unusual in open
> >source licenses, but see AFL/OSL 3.0 for an example)?
> Just to be on the safe side, we contacted our translator and we agree
> with him that it is not a translation issue. What we means is that the
> rights that are granted cannot really be fully exercised if the source
> code is not distributed, nothing more, nothing less. Subject to, in
> other words “being dependent or conditional upon something” means that
> the full exercice of the rights is dependant of the distribution of the
> source code. In other words, the licensor must distribute the source
> code. It is the licensor who is the debtor of that obligation. There is
> no other possible interpretations. This is supported by section 4.1 and
> 4.2 of the LiLiQ R and R+: “Every time the licensee distributes the
> software or modified software, the licensee is obliged to distribute
> its source code in the manner prescribed in the third paragraph of
> section (3).”
> >2) Section 8, first paragraph says: > >  Le licencié est responsable
> de tout préjudice résultant de l’exercice >  des droits accordés par la
> licence. > >English: > >  The licensee is liable for any prejudice
> resulting from the exercise >  of the rights granted under the licence.
> > >This would seem to be a counterpart to limitation-of-liability
> >provisions in conventional Anglophone software licenses. Is
> >"préjudice" equivalent in meaning to damages of any sort, liability of
> >any sort, or something else?
> Yes, it is a sort of limitation-of-liability provision. According to
> our translator, and I agree with him, “prejudice” was the best choice
> to translate “préjudice”, and it means, in that sentence, damage or
> detriment to one's legal rights or claims (took from the Black's Law
> Dictionary, 10th edition). In french, it means “dans un sens général,
> atteinte portée aux droits ou aux intérêts de quelqu'un”
> (http://dictionnairereid.caij.qc.ca/#s=~_d0!2!1!!0!1!1!6!!2!!!1!3!0!_d2!c3a1f841-a629-495d-aa39-79f20cd3e026!547!_d6!-1%240%2441.18467%24dictionnaire%3A//pre_0judice!zpypApspBptpvqaqxrusrwrqqpvqqqpsp!_d8!2!_d0!4!pr%C3%A9judice!_d1!Idictionnaire!!xqJqtFpupEpGppwpupwpvppvpppIpHpDpzpApypuppCpqxpspBpqrq!),
> which is translated “prejudice”. I am mostly sure that the words
> “injury” or “damage” are correct equivalent if used in the sense
> “liable for”. In any event, I don't think that the word “prejudice” is
> going to be an issue.
> Thanks,
> Simon
> Simon Johnson-Bégin, avocat  | Direction des affaires juridiques
> Centre de services partagés du Québec | 875, Grande Allée Est, 4e étage, Québec (Québec) G1R 5W5
> Tél. : 418 644-7934  | Téléc. : 418 646-0105
> simon.johnson-begin at cspq.gouv.qc.ca | www.cspq.gouv.qc.ca
> Veuillez prendre note que ce courriel est strictement confidentiel. Il est rédigé pour l’usage exclusif des employés du CSPQ concernés. À moins d’une autorisation expresse à cet effet, toute diffusion, distribution ou reproduction à l’externe est strictement interdite. Si vous avez reçu par erreur cette communication, veuillez en informer l'expéditeur par courrier électronique immédiatement et détruire l'original de ce message ainsi que toute copie.
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at opensource.org
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review

More information about the License-review mailing list