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 system shouldn't result in a license that is not free in localities unencumbered with the same. That is, a license which contains additional restrictions on what you can do in all jurisdictions simple to appease one is suboptimal, and likely non-free. [I'd imagine that wording like the no warranty parachutes which automatically bring the license into alignment with the local jurisdiction to be superior to limiting everyone globally.] > > >>5.3.4. COMPATIBILITY WITH THE GPL LICENSE > I'm not sure of this clause. I find it too vague. 1) "GPL" is never > explained. Any license named "GPL" would suit ? Like the Grr Pfff > Lol License ? Since this describes a superset of GPL(s) of which the GNU General Public License is one, I'd imagine it would work for our purposes. > 2) Which version of GPL should be used ? Any ? The current version ? > The current version or any later ? This could cause problems when > integrating CeCILLed software into GPLed apps. Yes. It would have been optimal if the GPL itself allowed for incrementing versions by default unless overridden in the licensing. This should probably be clarified in the interest of sanity for those combining works under the CeCILL with works under the GPL. Don Armstrong -- Personally, I think my choice in the mostest-superlative-computer wars has to be the HP-48 series of calculators. They'll run almost anything. And if they can't, while I'll just plug a Linux box into the serial port and load up the HP-48 VT-100 emulator. -- Jeff Dege, [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
