<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body bgcolor=white lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Hi Patrick,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I went to the <a href="http://www.inria.fr">www.inria.fr</a> 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?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Otherwise I am concerned that we’re going to have a lot of confusion about French software licenses translated roughly into English.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>FWIW, I also serve on the W3C Patents and Standards Working Group and have worked with W3C before on their copyright and patent licenses. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>/Larry<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Lawrence Rosen<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (<a href="http://www.rosenlaw.com"><span style='color:blue'>www.rosenlaw.com</span></a>)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Office: 707-485-1242<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext'> Patrick Moreau [mailto:patrick.moreau@inria.fr] <br><b>Sent:</b> Saturday, May 19, 2012 10:52 AM<br><b>To:</b> license-review@opensource.org<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [License-review] CeCILL license V2.1 for Approval<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Dear everybody<br>Thank you again to deeply analyse our last proposal.<br><br><b>In section 6.4 ("JOINT PROVISIONS"):</b><br>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:<br><i>"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."</i><br>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.<br><br>Patrick<br><br><br><br>Le 07/04/2012 00:36, Simon Phipps a écrit : <o:p></o:p></p><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>On 5 Apr 2012, at 16:42, BAYLE Anne-sophie 174294 wrote:<o:p></o:p></pre><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><pre>-----Message d'origine-----<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>* In section 6.4 ("JOINT PROVISIONS"), it says:<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre> "The Licensee undertakes not to directly or indirectly infringe the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre> intellectual property rights of the Holder and/or Contributors on the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre> Software and to take, where applicable, vis-à-vis its staff, any and<o:p></o:p></pre><pre> all measures required to ensure respect of said intellectual property<o:p></o:p></pre><pre> rights of the Holder and/or Contributors."<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre> This is very broad, and (in English) will apply to trademark rights<o:p></o:p></pre><pre> and patent rights. Is it necessary? There is much disagreement in<o:p></o:p></pre><pre> the software world about patents, and I don't see why Licensee should<o:p></o:p></pre><pre> have to go beyond whatever laws already govern it by default. In<o:p></o:p></pre><pre> other words, what is this clause for?<o:p></o:p></pre></blockquote><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>The sentence applies to the IPR on the Software as defined by the license. It thus <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>does not cover trademarks or patents. Patents are treated specifically, see Article 5".<o:p></o:p></pre></blockquote><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>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. <o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>* Similarly, 6.2 ("OVER THE CONTRIBUTIONS") seems redundant:<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre> "The Licensee who develops a Contribution is the owner of the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre> intellectual property rights over this Contribution as defined by<o:p></o:p></pre><pre> applicable law."<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre> What concern does this address?<o:p></o:p></pre></blockquote><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>Yes it's perhaps a little redundant but sometimes it could be a good thing notably to make this license understandable by everybody.<o:p></o:p></pre></blockquote><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>Once again, it's unhelpful as it uses a vague term in a general way.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>In both cases, I would very much prefer the term "intellectual property" to be replaced with the rights you are actually addressing. <o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>Thanks,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>S.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>License-review mailing list<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><a href="mailto:License-review@opensource.org">License-review@opensource.org</a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre><a href="http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review">http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review</a><o:p></o:p></pre></div></body></html>