On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 16:05:58 +0000 Ian Jackson wrote: [...] > I have read the licence PDF and it is a reasonable licence for open > data.
I have read the license text too and I have some doubts. Section _Liability_ reads, in part: | The « Producer » guarantees that it makes the « Information » | available free of charge, under the freedoms and the conditions | defined by this licence. This makes me think that the license cannot be used, when the Producer distributes the Information commercially (i.e.: by charging a fee for the service of making the Information available, without of course imposing the payment of any royalty). It's true that commercial re-use is explicitly allowed in section _You are free to re-use the « Information » :_ | To exploit the « Information » commercially but I am not sure how the above warranty (that the Producer does not sell the Information) can be considered consistent with DFSG#1. Moreover I wonder what impact it may have on the alleged GPL-compatibility of the license under analysis. Another point is in section _Intellectual property rights_: | The « Producer » guarantees that the « Information » is not subject | to any « Intellectual property rights » belonging to third parties. Maybe it's just an issue with poor wording, but this makes me think that the Producer cannot use this license for Information not entirely under his/her/its "legal" control. If, for instance, the Information includes some part copyrighted by a third party, this is a no-go, even if the third party agrees to license his/her/its contribution under these terms! [...] > Commonly, we would want to know if it was GPL3+-compatible. I think > it probably is. I don't see any clauses which are not restrictions > which are already in the GPL3 in other terms, so complying with GPL3 > would also comply with this licence. > > There is one possible exception, in that the licence requires > > The re-use shall not mislead third parties or misrepresent the > content of the << Information >>, its source and its time of last > update. > > "Misrepresent the content" is a bit vague. If challenged, I would > argue that this is the same as the GPL3's requirement for "appropriate > copyright notice" perhaps read together with the GPL3 requirement for > notices of modification. I agree that the expression is a bit vague, but this could perhaps be considered a non-issue: the well known [zlib license] is [considered] GPL-compatible and it includes the following clause: | Altered [...] versions [...] must not be misrepresented as being the | original software. This clause is not identical to the above-quoted expression, but I think it's similar enough. Nonetheless, I acknowledge that the zlib wording is clearer and less vague, so perhaps you are right that this is indeed an issue, I am not sure... [zlib license]: <http://www.zlib.net/zlib_license.html> [considered]: <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ZLib> As previously said, I am more worried about other clauses of this French gov open license. Finally, please note that this is yet another license that adds to the license proliferation problem. Why, oh why, the governments of some EU countries cannot help re-inventing the wheel by producing their own local legislation specific license texts?!? There are already a number of good, well-known, and simple licenses suitable for releasing non-copylefted free works: basically the [Expat license], the already cited [zlib license], the [3-clause BSD license], the [2-clause BSD license]. I am convinced that there's no need to go on producing new (contorted) license texts for the same exact purposes. [Expat license]: <http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt> [3-clause BSD license]: <https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause> [2-clause BSD license]: <https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-2-Clause> -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
pgpcvQaO3FJ1D.pgp
Description: PGP signature
