Page 2 sur 3Précédent 1, 2, 3 SuivantA propos de la licence AGPL

[Invité]

cela me rappelle un peu le problème avec la licence de K!TV. L'auteur dit que son programme est sous GPL mais ajoute une clause personnelle sur la distribution.
Dans notre cas aujourd'hui, il me semble que c'est un peu la même chose. Voir avec l'auteur est donc à mon avis une très bonne solution.

Cordialement,
Léviathan

[Nico]

Première ébauche (pas grand chose à faire cet aprem ) :

Hello,
I appreciate your work, and considering the time you spend developing, I also appreciate your will to distribute CMSimple under AGPL terms.
As a supporter of Framasoft community (an important French Internet community composed of open-source software user), I'm quite involved in open-source question.
Though I'm not a jurist, I've been very surprised by the notice you added in CMSimple license :
IMPORTANT NOTICE: As covered by the AGPL Section 2(d), the "Powered by CMSimple"-link to cmsimple.dk must under no circumstances be removed from pages generated by this program (except in print facility). If you want to remove or hide this link from your pages, you must purchase CMSimple under a commercial license. This also applies testing purposes and setup at an intranet or internal network.
After some easy verification, it's simply not true. AGPL section 2 (d) never specify such a thing.
AGPL says exactly ***spam*** :
d) If the Program as you received it is intended to interact with users through a computer network and if, in the version you received, any user interacting with the Program was given the opportunity to request transmission to that user of the Program's complete source code, you must not remove that facility from your modified version of the Program or work based on the Program, and must offer an equivalent opportunity for all users interacting with your Program through a computer network to request immediate transmission by HTTP of the complete source code of your modified version or other derivative work.
It means that you must actually keep a link not to original author site, but to some place where you may find the sources. No other obligation is specified, and in particular, that's nowhere specified you must conserve any attribution mention.
As I suppose such a mistake is probably caused by some misreading, I'd prefered to inform you that such a clause is not compatible with the AGPL license, and more generally, whith free software licenses and principles.
So, I suggest you either to remove this particular clause, or to not present CMSimple as AGPL compatible.
Thanks for your attention,
Cordially,
Nicolas XXXXXXXX

Mon anglais n'est pas des plus fluides ; il y a peut-être aussi des remarques à faire sur le fond ?

[LS.]

re-,

speedy-nico

je trouve que c'est un peu ... direct dans la forme :)

simply not true ... never specify ... such a mistake is probably caused by some misreading ... So, I suggest you either to remove this particular clause, or to not present CMSimple as AGPL compatible. ...

perso ça me fait marrer mais je ne sais pas si le gus rigolera aussi.

ok sinon avec le reste, ama l'objectif principal est de lui faire prendre position :
- est-il conscient de l'erreur (bonne foi ou pas ?) il va te dire qu'il a des bonnes raisons, que c'est pour mettre en oeuvre concrètement la clause de paternité, qu'où est le pb etc (et il risque d'esquiver le fait que la licence n'est pas modifiable)
- comme il y a incompatibilité et qu'on doit trancher pour référencer son logiciel (très important ça, à mettre en début de lettre peut être ?) et qu'on a un pb, on lui demande son Avis/Opinion : AGPL ou one more home-made licence ?

si son mail est intéressant, ça pourrait d'ailleurs être pas mal de mettre des extraits de la réponse de l'auteur sur la notice, histoire de chiader le contenu (?)

[Nico]

je trouve que c'est un peu ... direct dans la forme :)

:)
Tu n'es pas la première personne à me faire ce genre de remarques... j'ai un peu l'habitude ;)
Ok, je vais essayer de faire un effort, promis.

[Nico]

Hello,
I appreciate your work, and considering the time you spend developing, I also appreciate your will to distribute CMSimple under AGPL terms.
As a supporter of Framasoft community (an important French Internet community composed of open-source software user), I'm quite involved in open-source question.
The community regularly add new links to open-source softwares in its database, with some notice concerning software usage, and licensing.
We envisage to refer CMSimple, which appears to be a really good CMS tool.

However, there's some licensing problem to solve before we can reference CMSimple.

Though I'm not a jurist, I've been very surprised by the notice you added in CMSimple license :

IMPORTANT NOTICE: As covered by the AGPL Section 2(d), the "Powered by CMSimple"-link to cmsimple.dk must under no circumstances be removed from pages generated by this program (except in print facility). If you want to remove or hide this link from your pages, you must purchase CMSimple under a commercial license. This also applies testing purposes and setup at an intranet or internal network.

After some verification, it is not exactly true. AGPL section 2 (d) don't specify such a thing.
AGPL says exactly ***spam*** :

d) If the Program as you received it is intended to interact with users through a computer network and if, in the version you received, any user interacting with the Program was given the opportunity to request transmission to that user of the Program's complete source code, you must not remove that facility from your modified version of the Program or work based on the Program, and must offer an equivalent opportunity for all users interacting with your Program through a computer network to request immediate transmission by HTTP of the complete source code of your modified version or other derivative work.

It means that you must actually keep a link not to original author site, but to some place where you may find the sources. No other obligation is specified, and in particular, there's nowhere specified you must conserve any attribution mention.
Supposing some misreading, I'd prefered to inform you that such a clause is not compatible with the AGPL license, and strictly speaking, whith free software licenses and principles as defined by the Free Software Fundation.

As a consequence, I would like to know if CMSimple is really governed by the terms of the AGPL license, or if we must refer to it as an open-source "home-made licensed" project.

Thanks for your attention,
Cordially,
Nicolas XXXXXXXX


Is it some better dear Laurent ?

[LS.]

re-,

je suis un peu une burne en anglais (écriture) en ce moment et à la bourre, donc pitié ...

suggestions dans le texte :


Hello,
I appreciate your work, and considering the time you spend developing, I also appreciate your will to distribute CMSimple under AGPL terms.
As a supporter of Framasoft.org community (an important French Internet community composed of open-source software user), I'm quite involved in open-source question.

I'd like to write an article about your soft to present it here : http://www.framasoft.org/rubrique168.html

I need to determinate the licence of your software and, though I'm not a jurist, I've been very surprised by the notice you added in CMSimple license :

IMPORTANT NOTICE: As covered by the AGPL Section 2(d), the "Powered by CMSimple"-link to cmsimple.dk must under no circumstances be removed from pages generated by this program (except in print facility). If you want to remove or hide this link from your pages, you must purchase CMSimple under a commercial license. This also applies testing purposes and setup at an intranet or internal network.

After some easy verification, it is not exactly true. AGPL section 2 (d) specifies :

d) If the Program as you received it is intended to interact with users through a computer network and if, in the version you received, any user interacting with the Program was given the opportunity to request transmission to that user of the Program's complete source code, you must not remove that facility from your modified version of the Program or work based on the Program, and must offer an equivalent opportunity for all users interacting with your Program through a computer network to request immediate transmission by HTTP of the complete source code of your modified version or other derivative work.

It means that you must actually keep a link not to original author site, but to some place where you may find the sources. No other obligation is specified, and in particular, there's nowhere specified you must conserve any attribution mention.

Are you sure that such a clause is compatible with the AGPL license, which may not be modified ? and more generally, what about its compatibility free software licenses and principles ?

Fot the article, do you suggest to indicate AGPL licence, or CMSimple personnal licence ?

Thanks for your attention,
Cordially,
Nicolas XXXXXXXX

[soupaloignon]

On dirait que le texte prend forme, ça c'est du travail collaboratif

J'ai commencé à rédiger de mon coté l'article sur ce CMS. Je pensais n'envoyer le texte en anglais à l'auteur du logiciel qu'à partir du moment ou l'article sur le CMS serait en ligne.
Cela lui permettra de pouvoir le lire directement, plutot que d'en attendre la publication.

[LS.]

J'ai commencé à rédiger de mon coté l'article sur ce CMS. Je pensais n'envoyer le texte en anglais à l'auteur du logiciel qu'à partir du moment ou l'article sur le CMS serait en ligne.
Cela lui permettra de pouvoir le lire directement, plutot que d'en attendre la publication.

bien vu ça !

[Nico]

OK.
Ce qui me gênait un peu pour écrire la lettre, c'est que ce n'est pas moi qui référençait l'article (en fait, ma lettre originale - un peu brusque - n'était pas écrite dans la même optique).
Si tout le monde est d'accord, ça simplifie.

On peut aussi remplacer Framasoft.org community supporter par Framasoft.org community member s'il y a l'aval d'un modo - je voulais pas engager Framasoft à priori.

Au passage, soupalognon, si tu veux la poster quand tu as fini d'écrire l'article, c'est peut-être aussi simple non ? (je te la licencie en domaine publique même si tu veux )

[LS.]

On peut aussi remplacer Framasoft.org community supporter par Framasoft.org community member

oui, ou même par "framasoft.org team", car le site fonctionne sur un modèle coopératif, et les rédacteurs de notices sont des auteurs, donc membres de l'équipe qqpart. Soupaloignon, it's up to you :)

merci Nico