<div dir="ltr">Another question to Carsten Gerlach:<div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">The “weak†("reasonable" or "moderated" sounds better) copyleft
<span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:107%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">ESA-PL_Weak</span>
provides the right to (re-)distribute
the Software and/or Modifications under a compatible licence. <br>Annex A lists only two licences: the GNU GPL v2 and later and the CeCILL v2 or later.<span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">Questions:<br>1. Why not the GNU/AGPL, knowing that the <span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:107%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">ESA-PL_Strong
covers SaaS (point 3.4 which differs from tha ESA-PL_Weak)?<br>2. Why not the EUPL v1.2, which should be considered since ESA is "quasi" a specific European Agency (even if some members differ), knowing that CeCILL v2.1 is compatible with the EUPL (and the reciprocate)? <br><span style="font-size:11pt">NB: in addition, the EUPL V1.2 authorises specific agreements concerning applicable law and arbitration, where CeCILL refers to the French law only and to the court of Paris</span><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:107%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:11pt">Kind regards,</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:107%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:11pt">P-E.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:107%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:107%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><br></p>
</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2018-03-03 1:18 GMT+01:00 Bruce Perens <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bruce@perens.com" target="_blank">bruce@perens.com</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><div style="margin-left:40px">3.1 Copyleft Clause.<br>All Distribution of the Software and/or Modifications, as Source Code or Object Code, must be, as a whole, either under (a) the terms of this License or the ESA-PL Strong Copyleft license <b>v2.2</b> or (b) any later version of these Licenses unless the Software is expressly Distributed only under a specific version of the License by a Contributor or (c) the terms of a compatible license as listed in Appendix A to this License. Any obligation in this License to Distribute under the terms of this License, in particular as set out in Sec. 3.2, shall be construed as referring to “this License or a compatible licenseâ€.<br><br></div>Do you really mean v2.3 here?<br><br></div>For<b> 3.2.1</b> and<b> 3.2.3</b>, I have the same criticisms as for the Strong version of the license.<br><div><br><div style="margin-left:40px">3.2.4 <u>Combinations</u>. You may create a Modification (the “Combinationâ€) by combining or linking the Software or Modifications thereof (the “Covered Codeâ€) with additional code or software (the “External Codeâ€) not governed by the terms of this License and Distribute the Combination<br>- in Object Code form under any license terms, and/or<br>- <b>in Source Code form the External Code’s Source Code</b> under any license terms<br>and the Covered Code’s Source Code under this License,<br></div><br>It would read better as "in Source Code form <b>with </b>the External Code’s Source Code under any license terms"<br><br></div><div>For <b>7.1</b> and <b>7.2</b>, I have the same criticisms as for the Strong version of the license.<br></div><div><br></div></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
License-review mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:License-review@lists.opensource.org">License-review@lists.<wbr>opensource.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.opensource.org/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/license-<wbr>review_lists.opensource.org</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature">Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz<br><a href="mailto:pe.schmitz@googlemail.com" target="_blank">pe.schmitz@googlemail.com</a><br>tel. + 32 478 50 40 65</div>
</div>