Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
GNU is Not Unix Your Rights Online

CeCILL: La Licence Francaise Du Logiciel Libre 362

Posted by timothy
from the got-a-different-word-for-everything dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

CeCILL: La Licence Francaise Du Logiciel Libre

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 13, 2004 @04:05AM (#9683949)
    Slashdot is too franco-centric!
  • About time (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) on Tuesday July 13, 2004 @04:05AM (#9683950)
    GPL translations [linux-france.org] 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?
    • Re:About time (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Evan Meakyl (762695)
      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!
    • Re:About time (Score:3, Interesting)

      by MoonFog (586818)
      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".
      • This would seem to create a contradictory license.
      • Re:About time (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        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.
        • Re:About time (Score:3, Interesting)

          by maxwell demon (590494)
          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.
          • OT: IANAL (Score:3, Interesting)

            by jhoffoss (73895)
            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.
    • Assuming the developer(s) in question is/are not the sole holder(s) of the copyright on the GNU-GPL-ed work that they are distributing (in which case they can do whatever they like), they cannot use it as a replacement without permission of all the copyright holders of the work.

      Assuming the developer(s) is/are the sole copyright holder(s) and this new license is GNU-GPL-compatible, they can license the work under both, but they cannot stop people in France from distributing their work under the ters of the

      • BTW, 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 (e.g.: downloading, running &c the program).
        • Re:About time (Score:3, Informative)

          by falonaj (615782)
          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 (Score:3, Informative)

            by sepluv (641107)

            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"? [gnu.org] 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 [slashdot.org]). (Actually it seems to be a
            • Re:About time (Score:3, Interesting)

              by falonaj (615782)

              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 s

    • Re:About time (Score:5, Informative)

      by YellowBook (58311) on Tuesday July 13, 2004 @04:35AM (#9684061) Homepage

      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:About time (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Hadriven (670847)

      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

  • ... with some delicious Freedom Fries.

  • Necessary? (Score:4, Informative)

    by sepluv (641107) <blakesley@gmail . c om> on Tuesday July 13, 2004 @04:08AM (#9683967)
    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? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by orzetto (545509) on Tuesday July 13, 2004 @04:27AM (#9684044)

      Don't say this aloud, but the GPL is not worth the bits it's written on in France. The FSF states [gnu.org] 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 [linux.it], 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?

      • but in France if a contract is not in French, it's not worth anything
        It is a good job, then, that the GNU GPL is not a contract. (BTW, I suspect that if the French did have such a law on contracts it would be illegally because it would contradict the laws set down by the EU on what constitutes a contract.)
      • 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 contr
        • by Scarblac (122480) <slashdot@gerlich.nl> on Tuesday July 13, 2004 @04:55AM (#9684128) Homepage

          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.

        • by suffe (72090) * on Tuesday July 13, 2004 @05:26AM (#9684212) Homepage Journal
          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.
          • by houghi (78078) on Tuesday July 13, 2004 @06:03AM (#9684317)
            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).
            • by vidarh (309115) <vidar@hokstad.com> on Tuesday July 13, 2004 @08:26AM (#9685276) Homepage Journal
              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

          • Every single law or license that gives rights takes them away, too. If you suddenly get the right to eat ice cream, I suddenly lose the right to stop you eating ice cream. The "x only gives rights" argument is, and always will be, bunk.
            • 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 redistri
    • IANAL, but this French license isn't compatible with the GPL in the true sense.

      Article 3 - ACCEPTANCE

      The Licensee shall be deemed as having accepted the terms and conditions of this Agreement by the occurrence 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;
      - (ii) the first time the Licensee exercises any of the rights granted hereunder.


      The (i) is incompatible with the GPL where you are not requi
      • Correct. The french government need better lawyers. (As I said in another post, if it is truly GNU-GPL-compatible in France then it this license is not nessecary as this means that the GNU GPL is fully compatible with French law. QED.)

        (I'm basing my critique on the English version as my French is awful, and some criticisms may be unfair due to translation problems or cultural differences. However, I am in the UK, and contract law and the distinction between contracts and licenses are basically set by E

      • In which way is the patents statement incompatible to the GPL? After all, it grants rights, it doesn't make a restriction. I don't think that granting additional rights is incompatible with the GPL. IANAL however.
    • I have found the special license for the rights of the author [Fiduciary Licence Agreement] [fsfeurope.org] that I was on about. It was created as an FSF-Europe project [fsfeurope.org].
  • That's nice (Score:5, Funny)

    by SpooForBrains (771537) on Tuesday July 13, 2004 @04:10AM (#9683976)
    Just in time for European Software Patents to make it redundant :)
  • A Good Thing (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ajs318 (655362) <sd_resp2@@@earthshod...co...uk> on Tuesday July 13, 2004 @04:15AM (#9684000)
    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.
  • by maxwell demon (590494) on Tuesday July 13, 2004 @04:21AM (#9684022) Journal
    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)
    • by plaa (29967)

      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 [gnu.org]:

      5. You are not required to accept this Li

      • what I don't like about this
        license is that you have to accept it
        If you have to accept it then it is not a license (under any jurisdiction AFAIK). A license is merely a one-way grant of permssion. This document is trying to be a contract, but I suspect it is actually null and void. Whatever it is, it is defintely not free in any way. Also, Article 5.3.4 incites the illegal copying of GNU-GPL-ed works.
    • Misses treating a couple of the columns as columns, but at least you can copy and paste line-by-line in those parts (en masse elsewhere).
  • by xonen (774419) on Tuesday July 13, 2004 @04:22AM (#9684026) Journal
    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 ;)
  • by fishing (206255) on Tuesday July 13, 2004 @04:25AM (#9684032)
    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).
  • French bashing (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 13, 2004 @04:27AM (#9684041)
    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.
    • It goes without saying, even in many of the other European countries I have visited recently, that the french have an arrogance about them that the USA can not even be compared to.

      I don't say this to bash the french, or your comment (as it is a respectable opinion) however, in many instances throughout many aspects of the French economy, politics or culture, there is an "arrogance". It may be a cultural style of isolationism... but whatever you call it - it's prevelant in the medical industry (at times) a
      • 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

        • 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 hav
      • This "arrogance" (so quoted because it is the closest word I can't render at the moment),
        Chauvinism [m-w.com]
        And no, it has nothing to do with either being feminist, male or a pig.

      • 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?

        Re
      • by killbill! (154539) on Tuesday July 13, 2004 @06:57AM (#9684498) Homepage
        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.
      • 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 Amer

    • Re:French bashing (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ajs318 (655362) <sd_resp2@@@earthshod...co...uk> on Tuesday July 13, 2004 @05:43AM (#9684261)
      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.
      • Re:French bashing (Score:3, Insightful)

        by zoloto (586738)
        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
        • Re:French bashing (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Idarubicin (579475)
          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

      • by CrimeaRiver (744268) on Tuesday July 13, 2004 @09:16AM (#9685770)
        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.
  • here we go (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Ari_Haviv (796424)
    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
  • Just stop it! (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 13, 2004 @05:15AM (#9684182)
    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.
  • by JPS (58437) on Tuesday July 13, 2004 @05:24AM (#9684209) Homepage
    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 ...
  • by dcw3 (649211) on Tuesday July 13, 2004 @05:52AM (#9684289) Journal
    "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!)
  • Yes but... (Score:4, Funny)

    by zBoD (86938) <BoD@JRAF.org> on Tuesday July 13, 2004 @06:00AM (#9684310) Homepage Journal
    ...will you americans call it the French License or the Freedom License ? :)
  • 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.
    • 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. Cou
  • by WormholeFiend (674934) on Tuesday July 13, 2004 @06:41AM (#9684422)
    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?)

  • by benja (623818)
    Well, if anyone's still reading so far down the article, although I'm not an FSFie or a lawyer, I'm sure this license won't be considered GPL-compatible by the FSF.

    Article 13 of the English translation says: "The Agreement is governed by French law. ... In the absence of an out-of-court settlement 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 first Party to take

  • by c13v3rm0nk3y (189767) on Tuesday July 13, 2004 @09:30AM (#9685904) Homepage
    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".

Truth is free, but information costs.

Working...