Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 11:24:29PM +0200, Florian Weimer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Lucas Nussbaum:
IANAL, but the license[4] look quite ok for me, even if the part about
GPL compatibility seems a bit unclear.
It looks like a fallback close similar to the LGPL.
On 2004-07-11 15:54:05 +0100 Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
This looks like a weak definition of source code: what is *required*
so
as to modify a program written in C?
I agree, this looks like a lawyerbomb.
Moreover, I think it should say explicitly the GNU General Public
On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 16:19:57 -0700 Josh Triplett wrote:
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
[...]
Alex Hudson [EMAIL PROTECTED] was able to find the english
version of the license. It's here :
http://www.inria.fr/valorisation/logiciels/Licence.CeCILL-V1.US.pdf
For ease of quoting and commentary,
On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 08:36:10PM -0700, Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The license also contains many clauses that suggest a belief that the
license controls _use_ of the software, which has no backing in (US, at
least) copyright law. While these clauses do not seem to be non-free,
On Wed, 07 Jul 2004, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
One of the goals was to create a license which is compatible with
french law. (It isn't clear whether the GPL is.)
Presumably you're obliquely invoking droit d'auteur as the reason for
incompatibility; ideally the vagaries of one locality's legal
Hi,
The CEA[1], the CNRS[2] and the INRIA[3] have released a GPL-compatible
free software license. It seems to me that it is an very important move
: the CNRS and the INRIA are the two research institutes doing research
in computing. I know INRIA has distributed ocaml, mldonkey(!), and
scilab,
* Lucas Nussbaum:
IANAL, but the license[4] look quite ok for me, even if the part about
GPL compatibility seems a bit unclear.
It looks like a fallback close similar to the LGPL. My french is
rusty, though, I shouldn't try to interpret contracts. 8-
On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 11:24:29PM +0200, Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
* Lucas Nussbaum:
IANAL, but the license[4] look quite ok for me, even if the part about
GPL compatibility seems a bit unclear.
It looks like a fallback close similar to the LGPL. My french is
rusty,
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 11:24:29PM +0200, Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
* Lucas Nussbaum:
IANAL, but the license[4] look quite ok for me, even if the part about
GPL compatibility seems a bit unclear.
It looks like a fallback close similar to the LGPL. My
On 2004-07-07 00:19:57 +0100 Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
posted:
FREE SOFTWARE LICENSING AGREEMENT CeCILL
First off, I was told again today that French has no direct equivalent
word for software. Logiciel only means program. I've no idea
what other words don't translate. Basically:
On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 02:22:51AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Here we go again. Are these you will use *my* court terms acceptable
or not? :-/
It also has a bogus breathing, eating or talking means you agree to
this clause, and it's annoyingly long for a free license.
If there aren't any problems
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 02:22:51AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Here we go again. Are these you will use *my* court terms acceptable
or not? :-/
Not, in my opinion.
It also has a bogus breathing, eating or talking means you agree to
this clause, and it's annoyingly long for a
12 matches
Mail list logo
