CeCILL: La Licence Francaise Du Logiciel Libre

News for nerds writes "Researchers at three French government-funded research organizations revealed the new Open-Source license, known as CeCILL (English .pdf here), which they say is compatible with the FSF's GPL. CeCILL is intended to make free software more compatible with French law in two areas where it differs significantly from U.S. law: copyright and product liability. I, for one, welcome our nouvelle overlord of freedom."

Comments

Necessary?

[sepluv]

The GNU GPL is compatible with French copyright law as it stands. The FSF et al also use a seperate license (which I cannot find a copy of nowdespite searching) for the special rights of the author that exist in France.

Also, FSF Europe and the EC recently colaborated on a European trademark license for free software (which basically says that the trademark is allowed to be used only if the software is not sold together with non-free software).

Re:Necessary?

[Estian]

Contracts need be translated as well, and information about a product/service too.

http://www.langue-francaise.org/Loi_toubon.html

(Art.2 in particular).

Re:Necessary?

[jdhutchins]

If you don't like or accept the GPL, you can still use the software. However, you just can't modify or redistribute it.

To reiterate, you cannot use computer software without some license.
Think of it more as like a book. If you buy a book, you haven't signed any license, but you can still read it. GPL'd software is like that, except you don't have to pay. With a normal book (software without the GPL), you can't redistribute it. But if the book (software) is under the GPL, then you can correct errors in the book, copy the book, and give it to other people, as long as give it to them under the GPL. If they don't accept the GPL, they can still read it, but not make changes and redistribute it.

French laws are not the same as european laws.

[xonen]

French laws are not the same as 'european' laws.

For example, the intelectual ownership, the 'author' so to say.

In holland this is slightly different. If i am employed for a company, then this company is allowed to claim intellectual ownership about every line of code i write, also for open-source projects. This is because it is hard to distinguish 'personal' knowledge and 'professional' knowledge. In this case, the employer is protected a lot.

So, when employed as programmer, it is necessary to make a good arrangement, at least personal but preferably on paper, that you are allowed to write code in your own time and may publish this under a license chosen by you and that the company will grant you intellectual ownership of your code. However, it may be tough to get this black-on-white.. In practice it is no real problem, but juridical seen it is.

The french have arranged this better: intellectual ownerships is always at the author, as far as i understood.

maybe /me should find a job in the france ;)

Re:French laws are not the same as european laws.

[colinleroy]

The french have arranged this better: intellectual ownerships is always at the author, as far as i understood.

Actually, there's a copyright transfer (similar to the copyight transfer one can do with the FSF for GNU software) to the employer, for whatever we write during work hours; what we do during our spare time is ours.

this message © my employer.

Netherlands Creative Commons, too

[fishing]

I noticed recently that there has been an effort to translate the Creative Commons licence into Nederlands...

see: http://creativecommons.org/ for more info.

Waag Society in Amsterdam were having some seminars about this issue (though their site is a bit broken at the moment www.waag.org).

Re:About time

[YellowBook]

Note: I am neither a lawyer, nor a Francophone. However, after reading the English translation, it looks like a French developer should simply release software under the CeCILL license; the freedoms guaranteed are essentially the same as those guaranteed by the GPL (though the section on warranty is much more complex). If any GPL'ed modifications are made to a CeCILL'ed piece of software, the resulting software can be distributed under the GPL thanks to a clause in CeCILL specifically allowing this.

Re:nice one

[colinleroy]

Anyway, I imagine RMS will have to say a few thing on GPL-compatibility.

We saw him at Toulouse last Saturday, where he gave a speech about free software. Someone asked about CeCILL during the questions part of the speech, and he basically said it was fine (negating other FSF people's comments like these ones (in French).

Differnt languages in different countries

[houghi]

but in France if a contract is not in French, it's not worth anything.

The same can be applied to Belgium as well where a contract has to be in either the language of the part of the country. It is more complex then that.

This brings up the question if these are valid in other countries as well. It also is very normal. Imagine you having to sign or agree with a contract or licence in Japanese. Most likely you will not be able to know what you agree with.

Another question then comes to mind. If such a contract is not valid, what kind of licence is there then in, especialy, software. Does the Berne convention come into place (copyright) or is it free for all?

Re:Differnt languages in different countries

[houghi]

In other words, if it is indeed non-valid, due to language related reasons or other, then the source is simply a document with copyright applied to it. No need to get all nervous and paranoid.

Hear me out a bit. If I write some code (Not that I am able to) and I put it on a Belgian Server, standing in Belgium living in Belgium and slap the GPL on it, the GPL (if in English) would not be valid. People could download it and implement it in their own projects. Suddenly I realize that the GPL does not apply, so I start asking money or start suing people, because they infinged the copyright. I never gave them permision to use the code, as the GPL did not apply.

It is doen with a LOT of software that originates outside the USofA. A lot of them just have the GPL or point to the English GPL.

This could mean that all code that was written outside of the USofA and implemented in OSS projects, like Linux, is not under the GPL but under copyright. That could mean that somebody who is a kernel developer sells his copyright to, say, SCO.

IF this is possible, then there is all need to get nervous and paranoid.

So what is happening in France is extremely usefull and perhaps should be followed by other countries all over the world. At least people who are lawers should have a closer look at it, before SCO and the like take a look at it.

I surely hope that my reasoning is completely false. I have no idea what would happen if I suddenly would claim my copyright after I put a GPL on it. If I am an individual, I probably get laughed at. If I am a large company, I might get what I want. The proof that copyrighted code is put into OSS illegaly (or at least a lot of FUD).

Just stop it!

[Anonymous Coward]

Not been for the French all the time, being French myself, but I'm not against the American all the time, being in a community that has its root in the US. But then again, France is not the USA, and our law are different, which is why we needed a FOSS license on our own, because after all if the GPL can't have validity against the French law on certain points (as it was written against the US law) I think it is a very good thing to have a license that can stand in court in France. It is funny to see that SOME Americans think that whenever somebody else is doing something differently, it is obviously wrong and directed against the US as some kind of long lasting hate. Well not at all, but then ask you the question, when the US adopted something not American? well not really often, so as it seem normal for you to keep your American pride, please leave others keep their own pride if they think it is good for them. After all it is the excess of the US regime that we complain about, not the basic.

It is about liability AFAIK

[kellererik]

Judging from various news sources, the license was created as a protection for OSS developers.
French law doesn't seem to allow the "if something bad happens, you've been warned before" clause in the GPL, means a developer can't be hold liable for e.g. lost data. For that reason the "experienced user" term was added to this license, so a potential user has some kind of warning that the code might not perform as expected.

my 2 cents

Re:About time

[falonaj]

I've read the license and it appears to not be compatible with the GNU GPL as it puts further restrictions on the licensee than the GNU GPL

This doesn't matter because the CeCILL license says the program can be relicenced under the GPL in paragraph 5.

Re:About time

[sepluv]

This doesn't matter because the CeCILL license says the program can be relicenced under the GPL in paragraph 5.

Please refer to GNU GPL FAQ: What does it mean to say that two licenses are "compatible"? before reading further. I will make the assumption that "GPL license" means the FSF's GNU GPL. You statement is proved incorrect by any one of the following facts:

1. CeCILL removes rights from the user and requires agreement so it is a contract, not a license (see this post). (Actually it seems to be an illegal contract which violates the European directive on contract law.) To be a "compatible license" it must actually be a license.
2. Assuming it is a valid license (which it isn't), the CeCILL only invokes the compatibility clause (5.3.4) "[i]n the event that the Modified or unmodified Software includes code that is subject to the GPL"; i.e.: it itself says that it only attempts to be GNU-GPL-compatible in cases where the original person to put the software under CeCILL included already GNU-GPL-ed software under CeCILL (i.e.: where the person who put it under CeCILL committed copyright infringement (aka "piracy") on GNU-GPL-ed software--assuming the software they used was only available under the GNU GPL).
3. Most importantly; assuming the CeCILL itself allows merging with GNU-GPL-ed code (which it doesn't); because CeCILL puts many additional restrictions (e.g.: on agreement, running the prgram, downloading the program) on the user (even going so far as attempting to remove the user's pre-existing natural rights), regardless of whether it would violate the CeCILL, it would be "violating" the GNU GPL to link/join/merge exclusively GNU-GPL-ed software with exclusively CeCILL-ed software.
4. Software covered by the CeCILL exclusively does not seem to conform to the FSF free-software definition (or the DFSG or the OSD), therefore can never be likned with copylefted (e.g.: GNU-GPL-ed software).

Those are the main reasons.

Small cultral differences

[CrimeaRiver]

Speaking as an American who moved here to France five years ago, I think most perceptions of arrogance on both sides are due more to cultural differences than efforts or non-efforts to speak the language.

The French are more polite than Americans in certain situations and less so in others. For example, have you ever stood in line in France? It's every one for his or her self. Americans would find this very rude, but in France it's normal. On the other hand, in France you say hello and good-bye at least once to everyone you do business with, including the person at the toll booth as you plunk change into her palm while hardly even stopping the car. An American probably wouldn't think twice about never saying a word in such a situation, but a French person would probably find it rude.

There are many other examples of courtesies that are simply different between the two cultures. If an American isn't aware of the differences, he or she may find French people rude and perhaps arrogant, and vice versa.