Slashdot Mirror


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."

65 of 362 comments (clear)

  1. I reject this cultural imperialism! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Slashdot is too franco-centric!

  2. About time by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 4, Interesting

    GPL translations have always been awkward, they don't translate well into the local legal frameword. This new license is good because it's based on French laws rather than a french interpretation of US laws, and as an added bonus, if such a license is ever challenged in court, judges will take it more seriously if it's home-grown than if it's an "import" license.

    Now, not being a lawyer and all, my question is: can a french developer use the CeCILL license as a drop-in replacement for the GPL? can he ship both licenses in a software product's tarball and consider both licenses equivalent in terms of rights they grant, in each country?

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    1. Re:About time by Evan+Meakyl · · Score: 3, Interesting

      can he ship both licenses in a software product's tarball and consider both licenses equivalent in terms of rights they grant, in each country?

      The day the GPL will be translated and adapted for all the countries, will we have to add a 50Mb text containing all this licenses in each software product's tarball ??? I think soureforge will explode!

    2. Re:About time by MoonFog · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You are entitled to use whatever license you want for your own products, and although IANAL either, that should at least mean that you can say "in this country GPL applies, while in that country CeCILL applies".

    3. Re:About time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't think so. The GPL demands no discrimination is applied on those who may use it. What you propose is discrimination (although arguably positive discrimination). IANAL.

    4. Re:About time by YellowBook · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      The scalloped tatters of the King in Yellow must cover
      Yhtill forever. (R. W. Chambers, the King in Yellow
    5. Re:About time by Hadriven · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What's interesting about this licence is that is has been written by institutions close from the french government - the CEA are strongly bound to it because they're the ones in charge, AFAIK, of both military and civilian nuclear technology, and the CNRS and INRIA are well-known national research institutes.

      IANAL, but I'm quite sure such a licence is something that may potentially be taken seriously by courts, at least in France. If only because of its apparently complex french lawyerspeak... And because of its origins, probably way more serious from the perspective of a judiciary system than a licence written by a group of idealists in a country where laws aren't the same, and in a different language. As some more or less explicitly pointed here, licence translations aren't that good - I guess the potentially ambiguous nature and abusive lexical complexity of lawyerspeak aren't something that is easily translateable.

      Now, there is something in the press release that may make some cringe. Here's a fairly literal translation of a snippet in this release :
      This licence is the first of a family intended to develop itself along principles characterizing other very used licences
      At the end of this sentence is written a small superscript 2 that sends to a footnote whose meaning goes as follows :
      Namely the LGPL (Lesser General Public Licence), QPL (Q Public Licence) and BSD (Berkeley Software Distribution) licences.
      I'll let you ponder on whether BSD's a free licence...

      - Hadriven

    6. Re:About time by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, you cannot disallow those who got it with GPL to redistribute it to France, but the GPL doesn't give you the duty to distribute at all. Therefore if you say e.g. "I give this software only to my friends" then this is no violation of the GPL, but if you add "... and they may only give it to my other friends" it is.
      IANAL either.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    7. Re:About time by falonaj · · Score: 2, Informative
      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.

    8. Re:About time by MoxFulder · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, I read the French original and it states that any software licensed under the CeCILL license may be redistributed under the GPL, whether in modified or unmodified form. (section 5.3.4)

      So basically, I think this means that a French developer could release software under CeCILL, then anyone can treat it as GPL software if it's more convenient for them. Very nice!

    9. Re:About time by sepluv · · Score: 2, Informative
      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.
      --
      Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
      [This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
    10. Re:About time by falonaj · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Please refer to GNU GPL FAQ: What does it mean to say that two licenses are "compatible"? before reading further.

      According to the GNU GPL FAQ linked by you, GPL compatibility means that there is a way of redistributing a combined work under GPL. This is why CeCILL-compatibility of the GPL license is not a requirement for GPL-compatibility of the CeCILL agreement. I will come back to this important point below.

      it is a contract, not a license

      I agree. But the agreement allows the licensee to relicense the software under the GPL, which is exactly what the FSF defines as GPL-compatibility: "The GPL permits such a combination provided it is released under the GNU GPL. The other license is compatible with the GPL if it permits this too."

      Actually it seems to be an illegal contract which violates the European directive on contract law.

      If you are European laywer familiar with French copyright law, then please be more specific. Otherwiseit would be nice if you could point me to a respectable web site supporting your accusation.

      To be a "compatible license" it must actually be a license.

      So how about calling it "GPL compatible license agreement" instead?

      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

      Wrong. The words "original person" appear nowhere in the license agreement, and you left out the second paragraph of section 5.3.4, which explicitly deals with creating modified software by inserting GPLed code into the software and then redistributing the combined work under the GPL.

      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

      You are confusing GPL-compatibility of CeCILL license agreement with CeCILL compatibility of the GPL license here. Users of the modified, GPLed software are not subject to the CeCILL license agreement any longer, because they have received all parts of the modified software under the GPL. Only the person creating the combined GPLed work is subject to the CeCILL agreement, which allows creating a modified version of the CeCILL'ed software and releasing it under the GPL.

      to link/join/merge exclusively GNU-GPL-ed software with exclusively CeCILL-ed software.

      There is no obligation in the CeCILL software agreement to release the modified version under the CeCILL software agreement only, which would indeed violate the GPL.

      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).

      Nonsense. It doesn't matter whether the CeCILL license agreement confirms to the FSF free-software definition, or to any other free-software definition. A non-free license agreement can be GPL-compatible as long as the agreement allows to produce a combined work and to redistribute it under the terms of the GPL.

  3. Let us celebrate this ... by BabyDave · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... with some delicious Freedom Fries.

  4. Necessary? by sepluv · · Score: 3, Informative
    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).

    --
    Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
    [This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
    1. Re:Necessary? by orzetto · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Don't say this aloud, but the GPL is not worth the bits it's written on in France. The FSF states very good reasons not to translate the GPL in other languages, but in France if a contract is not in French, it's not worth anything. There is a law about this, maybe someone will provide a link (sorry my French is not that good).

      I was told this by people that have been working on the subject---I help out the KDE-i18n-it team, and the issue of translating the GPL surfaces every now and then, and one point made is what I reported here.

      I would really like to know whether this separate licence you mention is in French, any chances you find it?

      --
      Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
    2. Re:Necessary? by Estian · · Score: 2, Informative

      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).

    3. Re:Necessary? by jdhutchins · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.
  5. That's nice by SpooForBrains · · Score: 5, Funny

    Just in time for European Software Patents to make it redundant :)

    --
    "The dew has clearly fallen with a particularly sickening thud this morning"
  6. Re:I suspect... by JanneM · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Different legal system, so you need to adapt the license for it.

    It's funny (as in sad "funny") that americans seem to think that others dislike them a lot more than people really do. Of course, as some parts of the US have acted out on that misrepresentation the past few years, they are at serious risk of making it self-fulfilling.

    --
    Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
  7. A Good Thing by ajs318 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's nice to see that someone is making Open Source -- or should that be Logiciel Lisible Libre? -- "official". If this licence stands up to the scrutiny of the courts, and with official backing there really is no reason to suppose otherwise, then it's an important step in the right direction. The licence overcomes the Great Omission of BSD -- that is, it explicitly states that if you distribute modified binaries you must also make the source available -- and even provides explicit permission to use the GPL as an alternative licence.

    How long before there is a full-on, EU-wide Open Source push? What with rampant piracy in the former Eastern Bloc countries, official approval for the fair alternative can only benefit ordinary people.

    --
    Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
  8. Re:I suspect... by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I suspect they just want a "GPL" of their own that doesn't come from those "stupid Americains" ...

    Okay, I shouldn't feed the trolls, but...

    Yes, you're right: many french people do think "stupide Americians". Most software developers don't however, simply because they deal with other developers from all countries in the world on a regular basis. But if a Franco-French GPL is what it takes to further the cause of free software in the eyes of the general population and in courts, why not? I'm all for it.

    This is about developing free software, not about your stupid france-vs-america bull. If you can't talk about developing free software without communicating your totally unrelated biases, then please don't.

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
  9. Accepted before seen? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Section 3.1 states:
    The licensee shall be deemed as having accepted the terms and conditions of this Agreement by 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;

    [...]

    I consider this part problematic. After all, when you start downloading the software, you may not be able to detect the licence, and therefore how should yoi agree to it? IMHO a license should never be assumed to be agreed on until you had at least the chance to see it. Moreover, what about dual-licensed software? Say, a software comes both under this license and under the GPL, and I want to agree to the GPL only?

    OTOH I like the following part:
    Otherwise, the Licensor grants to the Licensee free of charge exploitation rights on the patents he holds on whole or part on the inventions implemented in the Software

    Note that there's no limitation of that clause to software derived from the licensed one, which IMHO means as soon as I accepted this license for a specific piece of software, I'm entitled to use all the licensor's patents covering that code freely in any project, even those not derived from this (i.e. basically the licensor is completely opening up the patents used in that code). However IANAL, and also I fear that this will be refined before any real software is licensed with this.

    (BTW, it sucks not having Copy&paste enabled in that PDF)
    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    1. Re:Accepted before seen? by plaa · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The licensee shall be deemed as having accepted the terms and conditions of this Agreement by 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;


      Even without the download clause, what I don't like about this license is that you have to accept it. The GPL specifically says that to use the software, you do not need to accept the GPL:

      5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License.


      That's a major part I like in the GPL - it's not an EULA (though some programs stupidly splash it in your face with an "I Accept" button the first time the program is run). If you don't like it, you can still use the software. It's only if you wish to do things normally forbidden by law (copying, modifying) that you have to accept the GPL.
      --

      I doubt, therefore I may be.
  10. French laws are not the same as european laws. by xonen · · Score: 4, Informative

    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 ;)

    --
    A glitch a day keeps the bugs away.
    1. Re:French laws are not the same as european laws. by colinleroy · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      --
      blah
  11. Re:SECAM Licence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Better than Never The Same Colour though, eh?

    Q. Why are American pool tables blue?
    A. So they look green on NTSC TV.

  12. Netherlands Creative Commons, too by fishing · · Score: 4, Informative

    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).

  13. French bashing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm not French but I'm getting tired of the jokes that are made each time something about France is published here. The French reading this site are often just coders that share our same spirit of OS and Linux and such.

    The jokes are often funny and the criticism is okay. Just not on every single subject that touches France.

    1. Re:French bashing by ajs318 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      People who think the French are arrogant probably just have not tried speaking to them in their own language.

      The French are a wonderfully polite race. All they ask is that you make some sort of effort to fit in with their culture and their language. It's their country, and they feel they have a right to expect it of you. Even if it is only just saying "Bonjour" [hello], "J'en veux comme celui-la, s'il vous plait" [I want one like that, please] and "Ou est la toilette?" [Where is the toilet?]

      Once you have indicated that you are making at least some small token attempt, then you will be treated to the usual Continental hospitality. Speak English to a Frenchman in France, though, and you have just earned yourself an enemy for life.

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    2. Re:French bashing by zoloto · · Score: 2, Insightful

      the problem with American's doing this in the USA, is that we're seen as "unaccomodating" and rude not to cater to "special needs" on a constant basis.

      I say speak the language of the country you're living in. It's official language, and properly as best you can.

      This bi,tri-lingual shiz really gets annoying to a great many people. If you live here, speak "American" please! If not, at least get your green card/citizenship before you bitch about things!

      It does help to speak the language of the country you live in, or visit. At least make an attempt to learn some basics or "small phrases" so people know what the hell you're talking about. Not just in the USA but EVERYWHERE! /end_rant

    3. Re:French bashing by gedhrel · · Score: 2

      America doesn't have an official language. It has a majority language, which in 15 years time may well be Spanish. Are you learning that?

      [Incidentally you can learn this and many other interesting facts about your own country by watching "the West Wing" :-) ]

    4. Re:French bashing by Idarubicin · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I say speak the language of the country you're living in. It's official language, and properly as best you can.

      This bi,tri-lingual shiz really gets annoying to a great many people. If you live here, speak "American" please! If not, at least get your green card/citizenship before you bitch about things!

      Hm. Why does it get annoying? Some other people speak other languages. Shrug. Worried about the cost of offering government services in other languages? Yep--it costs money. Probably would cost more money to leave people sick and cold if doctors, lawyers, shopkeepers, and teachers decided not to speak to them.

      A lot of countries are successfully bi- and even tri-lingual (in that all government business is conducted in all of the 'official' langauges) while providing support where appropriate in dozens of other languages.

      Also, a great many people for whom English is not a first language may well have green cards or full citizenship. They should be perfectly welcome to petition the government to fund multilingual services--there are lots of English-speaking special interest groups that receive funding for their pet projects; most of those are probably quite a bit smaller than the number of speakers of Spanish, or Cantonese, or French in the United States.

      Even if they speak functional English, many people may be more comfortable conducting business or dealing with the government in their first language. I can write legibly with my left hand, but I know that for important documents I want to use my right--this is a similar situation. Similarly, I can muddle through government documents in French (I live in Canada) but I much prefer the English version. If I were an immigrant, I'd hope that I could do things like apply for a drivers' license or ask about income taxes in my own language, just to be sure that I correctly understood the rules.

      What is "American"? In some parts of the United States, large areas probably speak more Spanish than English--should services in English be optional? Should service in Spanish be forbidden, since the majority of the country speaks English? Should we consider it hypocritical to criticize regimes elsewhere that deliberately suppress minority languages and cultures if such a policy were brought forth?

      Incidentally, the first sentence quoted contains several grammatical errors, including the ever-popular superfluous apostrophe in the possessive its. I presume that the parent poster is a native speaker of English, who has been educated in that langauge and immersed in its use since birth. If the parent still doesn't use the English language correctly, is it fair to expect its exclusive and immediate adoption by all new immigrants?

      --
      ~Idarubicin
  14. Re:I suspect... by nkh · · Score: 2, Funny

    In France, stupid people hate the USA for two reasons: fat people and rich people. Making fun of fat people (and McDonalds) is easy, and hating rich people is easy when you're poor. But there was a time (not so long ago) when americans were respected for their successful version of capitalism.

    As for us, GPL nerds, we don't care about the USA because we're all some kind of techno hippies that love to share software, there's not even a religious barrier.

    But don't be scared if a french guy is insulting an american, we've been doing this for years against canadians, belgians and swiss. Forget stupid people...

  15. Re:I suspect... by sepluv · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Different legal system, so you need to adapt the license for it.
    No you don't--the GNU GPL works fine in France. Due to the Bern convention the basics of copyright are the same all over the world. There are other additional author rights in France, but there already exist free licenses to cover these.

    In fact, logically, if the GNU GPL was somehow incompatible or did not work fully with French law then the French government could not claim that their license was compatible with the GNU GPL under French law. That is, if the new license is really compatible with the GNU GPL then, by definition, the GNU GPL would work just as well as it in French law therefore there is no need for the new license.

    I don't like the US goverment either (as a Ukonian) but the USan free software community and the FSF are the antithesis of the current US government, as they stand up for liberty and human rights--in a way they are the true USans (who follow the ideals of the constitution) as opposed to the USans who now give the US such a bad name.

    --
    Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
    [This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
  16. Re:nice one by colinleroy · · Score: 5, Informative

    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).

    --
    blah
  17. Differnt languages in different countries by houghi · · Score: 2, Informative

    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?

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    1. Re:Differnt languages in different countries by Scarblac · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oddly enough, because of Slashdot, I know much more about US copyright law than about EU/Dutch law (I am Dutch). So I could be wrong.

      But anyway, if the GPL isn't valid for some reason, then I would think that it is just void, no matter where you are. And yes, then the Berne convention applies - you have to get permission from the author to copy any copyrighted work. There's no reason why it would suddenly be free for all, just because there's an invalid license associated with it.

      --
      I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
    2. Re:Differnt languages in different countries by suffe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As have been stated over and over again, the GPL gives rights, it does not remove them. 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.

      --

      Karma: 2.71828182846 (Mostly due to small, fun pills)
    3. Re:Differnt languages in different countries by houghi · · Score: 4, Informative

      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).

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    4. Re:Differnt languages in different countries by vidarh · · Score: 4, Interesting
      It doesn't work that way. Even if a court decided that the license grant in itself was not legally binding on you, you would be prevented by a legal principle called "estoppel" from suing someone for doing something you have previously claimed they had a right to do.

      Even if the license might in theory legally binding on you, it would be highly improbably that any court would find that a claim by you to have licensed the code under certain terms would not consistute estoppel if you claimed as truth that people could distribute the software under the terms of the GPL.

      In fact, it goes further than that. If you assert that your software is licensed under the GPL, and that by placing the software under the GPL you're allowing people to do Foo with it, then you will be prevented from later suing people for violating the GPL even if Foo is a violation of the license.

      This principle is meant to provide safety that you can rely on statements from someone without needing to have every little detail agreed in writing.

      (The term "estoppel" came to English from French, btw.)

      ObDisclaimer: IANAL

    5. Re:Differnt languages in different countries by Raffaello · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Software is not ice cream.

      1. If I give you the right to use, modify, and redistribute my code, I do not thereby lose the right to use, modify, and redistribute my code. This is not true of ice cream, as you pointed out, one of the many ways in which ice cream is a really bad analogy for software.

      2. Without applying any license whatsoever, any code I write is protected under the Berne Convention and local copyright laws (in my case, U.S.). These copyright laws give you no rights to copy, modify or redistribute my code, with the very narrow exception of fair use - you may quote very limited portions in a review, critique, or scholarly article.

      3. The GPL gives, in addition, further rights, to copy, modify and redistribute my code (if I license it under the GPL). The GPL places some restrictions only on these further rights . The GPL does not place any restriction on any rights you already have under copyright law. For example, the GPL does not place any restrictions on your existing fair use rights. I defy you to find any restriction in the GPL on rights you already have under copyright law . Good luck; you won't find any.

      4. Conclusion: You have a profound misunderstanding of what rights you have to the use of my copyrighted work . You don't have the right to copy it in whole. You may only copy very small portions, and then only for the purpose of review, critique, teaching, or scholarly debate. You do not have the right to use my copyrighted work without my express permission, usually for a fee, which I, not you, determine. You do not have the right to redistribute my work. The GPL grants you these additional rights, but places some restrictions on only these additional rights. The GPL places no restrictions whatsoever on any rights you already have under copyright law without the GPL.

  18. Re:I suspect... by renoX · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well as a French, I agree that some people are jealous of the fact that some americans are very rich, but French don't hate Americans because of their fatness, make fun yes (and even not too loud because we have also the problem..), hate no.

    Anyway, the "hate" is more linked to Americans being perceived as being arrogant: "American's imperialism" is the major reason.
    The recent war with Irak is a good example of this domination in action: America wants to go to war with Irak, show unconvincing proof to NATA and when told that these proof are not convincing enough, goes to war alone..
    That is what French people hate about Americans.

  19. here we go by Ari_Haviv · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Just what we need: more politics and less quality code. There is no freedom with fragmentation. Microsoft will continue to dominate the computer industry until opponents try to unify

    --
    Join Team Mozilla #38050 Folding@home
  20. I hope you will be diping them in W Ketchup... by Kinniken · · Score: 2, Funny

    W Ketchup, America's Ketchup! The perfect complement to your Freedom Fries!

    And why not finish your patriotic meal with some Star Spangled Ice Cream, for the complete Conservative American Experience?

    --
    What do you know about World Politic? Find out in this quiz
  21. Re:When ideologies clash by Quirk · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Let me couch this in terms more enticing to understand, let's look at the post in terms of beer...mmmmmm beer. Where I live there's a brewer that makes good beer. Sleemans is a brewery that's been around for more than a hundred years because it makes a good brew. The owner of the brewery, a Mr. John Sleeman speaks out in advertisements that promote his brand name while talking about drinking and driving. He says he knows he can't stop people from drinking and driving but that he feels a responsibilty to speak out against it as he is a brewer. I think Mr. Sleemans' efforts are laudatory. While he can't really do anything to stop people from drinking his brew then driving he can speak to the ethics of the situation and ask that people don't drink and drive.

    My post simply spoke to the likelihood that FSF/OS organizations may have to speak to the ethics of the product being used is suppresive states. If and when this scenario comes into play the community will have to address the ethics of the situation. simple n'est pas?

    --
    "Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
    Cohen
  22. Just stop it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  23. Interesting GPL compatibility by JPS · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What strikes me in this licence is the way the claim to be compatible with the GPL. Essentially, it say that the CeCILL licence can be "transformed" into the GPL if a CeCILL licenced software uses of includes a GPL piece of software.

    This seems somewhat weird as it seems to imply that all CeCILL licence code can easily be transformed into GPL, thus removing all the specificies and french-law related subtelties of the original licence ...

  24. Re:French bashing justified??? Perhaps. by perly-king-69 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I live on the other side of La Manche and visit our French neighbours quite often.


    I think the whole arrogance thing is overblown. Yes Parisian waiters are arrogant - you expect that. But by and large they're just regular people trying to get by in the world just like most people. You find some friendly people, some @$$holes. Same everywhere you go.


    It's no different to American tourists in London. The knee-jerk reaction is that they're just a bunch of fat, loud, obnoxious Yanks. But I bet some of them are really nice friendly people!


    No, that wasn't a troll. Don't mod it as such.

    --

    --
    This sig is inoffensive.

  25. Re:French bashing justified??? Perhaps. by jandersen · · Score: 2, Insightful

    By the same token you could say that Americans deserve the hatred that comes their way. And many would agree - the impression that is prevalent in most countries outside America seems to be that you guys are terminally superficial, heavyhanded beyond any anything merited by the situation, infinitely selfish, wasteful and equipped with the narrowest tunnel vision know to mankind.

    But would it be reasonable to say that 'this is the way Americans are' just because your government and military are like that?

    Remember - you guys started on the nonsense with 'freedom fries', 'surrender monkeys' and 'France's mini-me'. You never heard any French officials blurt out that kind of drivel. Probably too arrogant to stoop that low.

  26. Re:I suspect... by hdparm · · Score: 3, Insightful

    'Arrogant' is a remark I hear all my life about Americans and French alike. What a load of crock. There's what - ~300 M people in these two countries and all of them are arrogant? Your comment, on the other hand, makes you (at best) ignorant.

  27. Waddaya, Nuts?!? by dcw3 · · Score: 3, Funny

    "I, for one, welcome our nouvelle overlord of freedom."

    Hey dumbass, you can't surrender to the French! (I'm kidding...really...I even married one!)

    --
    Just another day in Paradise
  28. Yes but... by zBoD · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...will you americans call it the French License or the Freedom License ? :)

    --
    BoD
  29. What about Article 13.2? by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 2, Insightful

    13.2 In the absence of an out-of-court settlement within (2) months as from their occurrence, and unless emergency proceeding are necessary, the disagreements or disputes shall be referred to the Paris Courts having jurisdiction, by the first party to take action.

    Does this mean companies can rob French OSS, and then force the creator to haul his ass to Paris to stop them? Or dows it just mean he has to get his ass to a fench law court? Either way some OSS writers may not be able to travel.

    Also considering the agreement requires the matter to be taken to a French court with jurisdiction, won't that mean that US, UK or other compnaies who breach it won't be held liable as they were outside the juristiction of any French court?

    Vive le difference.

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
    1. Re:What about Article 13.2? by Teancum · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In theory, you might also be able to haul them to New Oreleans and sue under Louisiana law (they still use Nepolianic Code in that state). Interestingly, lawyers from Louisana are the only American attornies who can practice law in France.

      This is a huge hole, and I'm not even sure it would hold up in U.S. courts... as in if an American modified software using this this license, would the license even be recognized at all by U.S. Courts? As in would this license even be held to be recognized in a U.S. Court, or would this provision throw the whole license out and invalidate the entire license?

      Yes, I also read section 11.4, but in this case that may not be sufficient language to justify "invalidating" the juristiction question. I don't see U.S. courts enforcing civil action against U.S. citizens that was done in a French court, particularly when the alleged infringement took place on American soil. In other words, knock your socks off and sue for millions of dollars against an American, but you couldn't collect a dime even if you won in court. It would just have the effect of placing a legal ban on that person from ever coming to France (which most Americans wouldn't care about anyway).

      How I could see U.S. common law interpreting this, assuming that it declares this license to be invalid, is to consider more along the lines of intent rather than actual prohibition. An "enlightened" judge might presume the terms of the GPL as an alternate, but more likely consider that the software was place into "Public Domain", and follow existing U.S. common law regarding its copyright status at that point. At least the GPL has a provision that if the license is unenforceable, then the license is revoked at it reverts to standard copyright terms, which would otherwise mean it simply can't be redistributed. I don't see this provision at all.

      I'm not too comfortable with Section 5.3.4 either. It mentions almost in passing that this license can be superceeded by the GPL under some circumstances. The Gnu Public License is not otherwise defined (Is that the General-microsoft Propritary License instead?) and while most /. geeks understand what you are talking about with the GPL, I can't same the same for most lawyers or especially judges. It doesn't even specify which GPL license, the Free Software Foundation, or which version (the new version 4 of the GPL that gives all copyright to RMS and forces you to pay him (Mr. Stallman) $1 for each time the software product is running?) It doesn't even deal with GPL varients like LGPL or FDPL, not to mention if other free software source code gets mixed in with this license, like BSD-link licenses.

      From a developer perspective, I would avoid software that is released under the CeCILL like it was some diseased, virus infected piece of software. I wouldn't even want to open the software to examine its internal workings, for fear of "contamination". That is the real point of going through this exercise, is that this group wants to have their license widely distributed, or at least have their software adoped widely with this license.

      Ultimately, this is another case of "Don't try this at home". RMS took quite a bit of time trying to come up with the GPL, and even he got it wrong the first time. Writing an open source license that grants freedom to copy but preserves copyright is not a trivial thing. In addition, the writing process of an open license can't be done in a traditional committee, but the process must also be open and subject to change if the community finds holes in the license. I just don't see the CeCILL having gone through that process, particuarly with the holes mentioned here.

  30. Re:Is French a big language? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    If you want a free license that grants recipients of your code the right to do anything they want with it, make it public domain. If you want credit for writing the code, use a BSD or MIT license. If you want to push an agenda, then use huge pile of legalese that is the GPL.

    Personally, I'd rather people continued to contribute changes to open source projects because they considered the existence of good open source software to be beneficial to themselves, rather than because they were forced to by the GPL, but then I still have some faith left in humanity.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  31. Note to Monolinguists by WormholeFiend · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The French do not follow the same rules as the English for word capitalization. This is evident in the French article, if you RTFA:
    CeCILL : première licence francaise de logiciel libre élaborée par le CEA, le CNRS et l'INRIA
    Now compare it with the /.-capitalized title:
    CeCILL: La Licence Francaise Du Logiciel Libre

    Notice how not every single word (including the articles) is capitalized? (Also, why don't Slashdot support accents and foreign characters?)

  32. It is about liability AFAIK by kellererik · · Score: 2, Informative

    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

  33. Re:French bashing justified??? Perhaps. by killbill! · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As a Frenchman myself, I have to agree. When I was in high school in Germany, we had French school books (designed by French people to teach French to foreigners) that were basically saying France is not only about pleasure of all kinds, it also is a major hi-tech nation
    They went on showing major French tech achievements: the TGV (French bullet train), the Airbus, and the Ariane rocket.

    Not a single word was spoken about the fact that THREE OTHER NATIONS were involved in the Airbus project, not to mention SIXTEEN in the Ariane project.

    On that very day, it finally dawned on me why so many people hated us and yet most of us didn't even know it.

    Or consider the French European policy. The French government has grown so used to treating the EU as a modern-day colonial empire that it was shocked when most European governments turned their back to it at the first chance they could get - namely supporting the Iraq war, even though it'd mean contempting international law and alienating voters.

    OTOH, quite the same thing can be said about the USA. I guess it is related to the fact both countries consider themselves as models to be followed.

  34. Re:French bashing justified??? Perhaps. by griblik · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Personally, as another islander, I'd have to say that in my experience, a fair percentage of the population of Paris are arrogant bastards.

    But then, I'd also say that a fair percentage of Londoners are obnoxious wankers with their own share of arrogance. Not for nothing do the residents of London enjoy a certain reputation around the rest of the country.

    I wouldn't call either group representative of the general population of their countries though. Most of the French people I've met here or in France have been genuinely nice, friendly people. Same goes for the 'fat loud obnoxious yanks' mentioned earlier - most Americans are decent interesting people.

    There just seems to be something about living in large cities that destroys people's consideration for others. Nothing to do with the country...

    --
    Warning: May contain nuts
  35. Re:French bashing justified??? Perhaps. by vidarh · · Score: 2, Insightful
    In my experience, this has nothing to do with the French being arrogant, and everything to do with dislike for the sterotypes of American tourists. As a Norwegian I've never experienced any arrogance from French people.

    However I have witnessed how American tourists often gets treated both in the UK and in France, often because they are perceived as loud, obnoxious and entirely without manners. Sometimes it might be true, but just as often it is a case of cultural mismatches.

    I think the main reasons Americans apparently don't see people in the UK as arrogant too is that the French are amazing at making their dislike for something extremely in your face, combined with larger cultural differences.

    The British on the other hand will, when offended, either use insults that the average American don't quite "get", or will smear it on thick with dry sarcasm that tends to pass straight over the heads of the stereotypical obnoxious US tourist...

    These kind of cultural mismatches have nothing to do with peoples real attitudes. For some other examples - when I started dealing with Americans and to some extent other English speaking people in conjunction with work years ago I realised that I would often be perceived as rude because of the way I was used to speak.

    In Norwegian you would often be very direct and informal and you use very few phrases that would be considered normal courtesy in other languages. It's very easy to carry artefacts like that over when you speak a foreign language. When Norwegians are being taught French and German it's drilled into your head that you need to watch it because you can really piss some (particularly older people) off, but for English it's often considered a lot less important, possibly because the differences are a lot more subtle.

    I still find it weird when people address me "sir" in shops in London for instance, while using the equivalent term in Norwegian would either get you a weird stare or people would possibly take it as an insult (as it could imply you were suggesting they were being snotty and arrogant).

    In the same vein my fiance (who is Nigerian) finds it extremely awkward to address my mother and grandparents by first name, being used to having to use courtesy terms or at least last name, while again either would be considered at best weird, at worst rude in Norway (because you'd be indicating that you're distancing yourself from someone, which is a sign of respect many places but would these days more often be interpreted as dislike or disinterest in Norway where the norm is to use firstnames in almost all situations).

    One of the other mismatches I often come across where I've both thought people were being rude and had people consider me rude is the (mostly US) thing with asking someone how things are going without expecting a response. Before I knew, I considered it extremely rude when I'd meet an American who'd ask me how things were going, and then keep walking past me without waiting for a response. At the same time, I soon realised that I'd sometimes be preceived as rude for starting to talk about how I was doing instead of answering by asking how they were doing.

  36. OT: IANAL by jhoffoss · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Quote: IANAL.
    Quote: IANAL either.

    Are there any lawyers on /.? If not, why don't we just post in every YRO story that "No one here is a lawyer." Think of how many "IANAL's" we'd save ourselves.

    --
    Linux: The world's best text-adventure game.
  37. Small cultral differences by CrimeaRiver · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  38. Moi, j'accueille notre nouveaux suzerains. by c13v3rm0nk3y · · Score: 2, Funny
    I, for one, welcome our nouvelle overlord of freedom.

    Unfortunately, the grammarian shock troops would probably just toss you in a re-education camp as soon as they arrived.

    You probably meant nouveau suzerain (or nouveaux suzerains to maintain parity with the Simpsons.)

    Of course, by posting this in the clear and not as an AC, I'm now exposing myself to our new overlords as someone who may also need a few years of work^h^h^h^hre-education, otherwise know as "French II".

    --
    -- clvrmnky
  39. Re:Confusing for us Portuguese by wcrowe · · Score: 2, Funny

    Those French! It's like they have a different word for EVERYTHING!

    --
    Proverbs 21:19
  40. law (not license) is interpreted differently by Xtifr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You are mistaken on this point. The FSF does not interpret the GPL to mean anything about linkage. The FSF interprets copyright law as saying that linkage constitutes copyright derivation. You may disagree, but that doesn't change the fact that the GPL is solely a defense against charges of copyright violation!

    If you violate the GPL, then the GPL no longer applies to you. But accepting the GPL is voluntary. If what you do with the GPL'd code is not violating copyright law, then the GPL is irrelevant, and you can argue that you never accepted it. If what you do with the GPL'd code does violate copyright law, then your only possible defense is that the GPL granted you the right to do what you did (which is only true if you adhered to its terms). But the GPL can never take away rights, by definition, because it exists solely as a defense against charges of copyright violation. If there is no possibility of copyright infringement, the GPL is moot.