[Foundation-l] translation and the GFDL

Fri Jul 6 21:02:59 UTC 2007

On 7/6/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
> "In essence" is my interpretation of what is done. I am not a lawyer but I
> do know that some quality expertise is going in the wording and of the text
> that explain the license for a specific legal system.
>

Not enough. There can never be enough. Even the EU doesn't manage 100% equiv.

> I am happy to learn that you know how it fails, I am sure that you have
> informed the Creative Commons about this.

No point. They are not going to shift for quite a while. The issue is
to do with their Canadian vs English & Welsh licenses.

> As to CeCILL is it a recognised Free license ?

Sure GPL equiv.

>And I am sorry to be dim it
> is the first time that I have heard of it .. for those as clueless as I am
> .. http://www.cecill.info/index.en.html .. this is what I read there "Free
> Software licenses conforming to French law."
>
> So not being a lawyer, I am still not impressed because the difference
> between this and the CC licenses is that the CC licenses are meant for EVERY
> country not just France.

The difference is that CeCILL is as equiv as humanly possible. Quality
over quantity. Of course I don't like it when people use CeCILL on
commons because I'm not sure how the whole source code thing works out
but it is a far better attempt at a multilingual license than CC
efforts.

Anyway we are getting away from the point. What do you think of the
GÖBL license?

-- 
geni