On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 09:24:21 +0000 MJ Ray wrote: > Stephane Glondu <st...@glondu.net> wrote: > > * Package name : ssreflect > > * URL : http://www.msr-inria.inria.fr/Projects/math-components > > * License : CeCILL-B > > RFC from debian-legal regarding the license:-
Better late than never, I am adding my own comments below. As usual, my disclaimers are: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. [...] > CeCILL-B FREE SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT [...] > Article 1 - DEFINITIONS [...] > Software: means the software in its Object Code and/or Source Code form > and, where applicable, its documentation, "as is" when the Licensee > accepts the Agreement. This might seem to be an infinite recursive loop (software := software + documentation), but IMHO is not: it's just the definition of the term "Software" (with the capital letter) as used in the license text, which consists of software in source or non-source form, including documentation, if present. [...] > Source Code: means all the Software's instructions and program lines to > which access is required so as to modify the Software. Very weak definition of source code: if I write a program in C++ and then compile it to an executable binary, is access to C++ code *required* so as to modify the program? No, it's not *required*, as I can always use a hexeditor and directly modify the executable binary form. It will probably be a pain, and I would probably *prefer* editing C++ code and recompile, but... access to C++ code is not really *required*! For comparison, the GNU GPL defines source code as the *preferred* form for making modifications, not the *required* form... [...] > 3.1 The Licensee shall be deemed as having accepted the terms and > conditions of this Agreement upon the occurrence of the first of the > following events: > > * (i) loading the Software by any or all means, notably, by > downloading from a remote server, or by loading from a physical > medium; This is problematic (as already pointed out by MJ Ray): the license is considered to be accepted by anyone who merely downloaded the Software from a remote server, possibly even before having the opportunity to actually read the license text! I don't know whether this is even legally enforceable: it looks really unfair. Moreover, IMO, a Free Software license should not restrict use, not even by insisting that users have to accept the license itself in order to get permission to merely use. [...] > 3.2 One copy of the Agreement, containing a notice relating to the > characteristics of the Software, to the limited warranty, and to the > fact that its use is restricted to experienced users has been provided > to the Licensee prior to its acceptance as set forth in Article 3.1 > hereinabove, and the Licensee hereby acknowledges that it has read and > understood it. It's not clear to me if (and how) 3.2 modifies 3.1(i)... [...] > 5.3.4 CREDITS > > Any Licensee who may distribute a Modified Software hereby expressly > agrees to: [...] > 2. ensure that written indications of the Software intended use, > intellectual property notice and license hereunder are included in > easily accessible format from the Modified Software interface, This restriction is even worse than the obnoxious GPL display-notes-clause (GPLv2 clause 2c and GPLv3 clause 5d): it does not even have an exception for cases where the Initial Software does not display the notices... This is a mandatory feature that must be implemented in the Modified Software (even when it is not already present): I think it's a non-trivial restriction on modification. It could even fail to meet DFSG#3. > > 3. mention, on a freely accessible website describing the Modified > Software, at least throughout the distribution term thereof, that > it is based on the Software licensed hereunder, and reproduce the > Software intellectual property notice, This seems to be utterly non-free. If I want to distribute the Modified Software, I have to write something somewhere on some website! I could even be unable to access the Internet, and just modify the Software and want to give the result to other people (maybe on a CD-ROM). It's a significant restriction on modification and I think it fails to meet DFSG#3. [...] > 5.3.5 COMPATIBILITY WITH THE CeCILL AND CeCILL-C LICENSES > > Where a Modified Software contains a Contribution subject to the CeCILL > license, the provisions set forth in Article 5.3.4 shall be optional. > > A Modified Software may be distributed under the CeCILL-C license. In > such a case the provisions set forth in Article 5.3.4 shall be optional. I've not thought much about how these permissions impact on Free Software license compatibility: maybe this clause creates a path to convert to the GNU GPL, or maybe not. Joe Smith elaborates on this in http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2008/12/msg00045.html [...] > 11.5 LANGUAGE > > The Agreement is drafted in both French and English and both versions > are deemed authentic. Wow! What happens if the two versions disagree? [...] > 12.2 So as to ensure coherence, the wording of this Agreement is > protected and may only be modified by the authors of the License, who > reserve the right to periodically publish updates or new versions of the > Agreement, each with a separate number. These subsequent versions may > address new issues encountered by Free Software. > > 12.3 Any Software distributed under a given version of the Agreement may > only be subsequently distributed under the same version of the Agreement > or a subsequent version. Mandatory upgrade mechanism: a Licensor cannot choose to license something under a specific version of this license without also licensing under future versions. Not a DFSG-freeness issue, but I would rather avoid adopting a license with a mandatory upgrade mechanism: software authors, you have been warned! [...] > 13.2 Failing an amicable solution within two (2) months as from their > occurrence, and unless emergency proceedings are necessary, the > disagreements or disputes shall be referred to the Paris Courts having > jurisdiction, by the more diligent Party. This is a choice of venue clause: such clauses have been discussed to death on debian-legal. My own opinion is that they are non-free. > > > Version 1.0 dated 2006-09-05. -- On some search engines, searching for my nickname AND "nano-documents" may lead you to my website... ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
pgpG7Vhtx4DNE.pgp
Description: PGP signature
