For Approval: CeCILL

[Wilson, Andrew]

Stéphane Dalmas wrote:
 
  > derivative works have to be put under CeCILL. As a special exception, when
  > a work covered by CeCILL is combined with a work covered by the GNU GPL,
  > the GNU GPL takes precedence (see clause 5.3.4 of CeCILL). 

Given that you explicity allow re-licensing under GPL when a CeCILL-licensed
work is combined with GPL code -- presumably, even with just
one line of GPL code -- isn't this
whole exercise a kind of elaborate licensing fiction?  It is apparently easier to
re-license CeCILL code as GPL than it is to get a divorce in Las Vegas.  ;-)

May I suggest that it would be more intellectually honest, and more readily
comprehensible to the world at large, to simply dual-license your code CeCILL/GPL
from the time of publication?

I have several comments/questions about specific provisions.

>        5.3.2 DISTRIBUTION OF MODIFIED SOFTWARE
> 
> When the Licensee makes a Contribution to the Software, the terms and
> conditions for the distribution of the Modified Software become subject
> to all the provisions of this Agreement.
>
> The Licensee is authorized to distribute the Modified Software, in
> Source Code or Object Code form, provided that said distribution
> complies with all the provisions of the Agreement and is accompanied by:
>
>   1. a copy of the Agreement,
>
>   2. a notice relating to the limitation of both the Licensor's
>      warranty and liability as set forth in Articles 8 and 9,

> and that, in the event that only the Object Code of the Modified
> Software is redistributed, the Licensee allows future Licensees
> unhindered access to the full Source Code of the Modified Software by
> indicating how to access it, it being understood that the additional
> cost of acquiring the Source Code shall not exceed the cost of
> transferring the data.

This language, and the equivalent language in 5.3.1 about distribution of
unmodified Software, appears to obligate Licensees to provide source code
to the world at large, not just to those who received a distribution of the
binary from the Licensee, for the entire term of the license.  This is much
broader in scope and potentially much longer in duration
than the equivalent obligation to provide source code under GPL.


>      6.4 JOINT PROVISIONS
>
> The Licensee expressly undertakes:
>
>   1. not to remove, or modify, in any manner, the intellectual property
>      notices attached to the Software;
>
>   2. to reproduce said notices, in an identical manner, in the copies
>      of the Software modified or not.
>
> 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 obligation not to "directly or indirectly infringe" any IP of the
Holder and/or Contributors is extremely broad, and seemingly not limited
to IP as embodied in the Software as received by the Licensee.  Is this
intended as a (stealth) defensive termination clause, should the Licensee
ever enter into any kind of patent/copyright/trade secret/trademark dispute with
the Holder or Contributors?  If so, it is probably GPL 2-incompatible, based on
RMS's comments on the defensive termination clauses of MPL, CPL, and Apache 2.0.


Andy Wilson
Intel Open Source Technology Center