trans-coord/gnun/licenses license-list.html

[Yavor Doganov]

CVSROOT:        /sources/trans-coord
Module name:    trans-coord
Changes by:     Yavor Doganov <yavor>   11/08/12 18:10:15

Modified files:
        gnun/licenses  : license-list.html 

Log message:
        Automatic sync from the master www repository.

CVSWeb URLs:
http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/trans-coord/gnun/licenses/license-list.html?cvsroot=trans-coord&r1=1.62&r2=1.63

Patches:
Index: license-list.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /sources/trans-coord/trans-coord/gnun/licenses/license-list.html,v
retrieving revision 1.62
retrieving revision 1.63
diff -u -b -r1.62 -r1.63
--- license-list.html   13 Jul 2011 18:10:16 -0000      1.62
+++ license-list.html   12 Aug 2011 18:10:15 -0000      1.63
@@ -814,19 +814,29 @@
 Public License (EUPL) version 1.1</a></dt>
 
 <dd><p>This is a free software license.  By itself, it has a copyleft
-comparable to the GPL's.  However, it allows recipients to distribute
-the work under the terms of other selected licenses, and some of
-those&mdash;the <a href="#EPL">Eclipse Public License</a> and the <a
-href="#CommonPublicLicense10">Common Public License</a> in
-particular&mdash;only provide a weaker copyleft.   Thus, developers
-can't rely on this license to provide a strong copyleft.</p>
-
-<p>The EUPL is compatible with GPLv2, because that is listed as one of
-the alternative licenses that recipients may use.  However, it is
-incompatible with GPLv3, because recipients are not given permission to
-use GPLv3's terms, and the EUPL's copyleft conflicts with GPLv3's.
-Because of this incompatibility, we urge you not to use the EUPL for any
-software you write.</p></dd>
+comparable to the GPL's, and incompatible with it.  However, it gives
+recipients ways to relicense the work under the terms of other
+selected licenses, and some of those&mdash;the <a href="#EPL">Eclipse
+Public License</a> and the <a href="#CommonPublicLicense10">Common
+Public License</a> in particular&mdash;only provide a weaker copyleft.
+Thus, developers can't rely on this license to provide a strong
+copyleft.</p>
+
+<p>The EUPL allows relicensing to GPLv2, because that is listed as one
+of the alternative licenses that users may convert to.  It also,
+indirectly, allows relicensing to GPL version 3, because there is a
+way to relicense to the CeCILL v2, and the CeCILL v2 gives a way to
+relicense to any version of the GNU GPL.
+
+To do this two-step relicensing, you need to first write a piece of
+code which you can license under the CeCILL v2, or find a
+suitable module already available that way, and add it to the
+program.  Adding that code to the EUPL-covered program provides
+grounds relicense it to the CeCILL v2.  Then your need to write a
+piece of code which you can license under the GPL v3+, or find a
+suitable module already available that way, and add it to the program.
+Adding that code to the CeCILL-covered program provides grounds to
+relicense it to GPL v3+.</p></dd>
 
 <dt><a id="IBMPL" href="http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ibmpl.php";>
     IBM Public License, Version 1.0</a></dt>
@@ -1641,14 +1651,15 @@
 software or documentation, since it is incompatible with the GNU GPL
 and with the GNU FDL.</p>
 
-<p id="which-cc">Creative Commons publishes many licenses which
-are very different.  Therefore, to say that a work &ldquo;uses a
-Creative Commons license&rdquo; is to leave the principal questions
-about the work's licensing unanswered.  When you see such a statement
-in a work, please ask the author to highlight the substance of the
-license choices.  And if someone proposes to &ldquo;use a Creative
-Commons license&rdquo; for a certain work, it is vital to ask
-immediately, &ldquo;Which one?&rdquo;</p>
+<p id="which-cc">Creative Commons publishes many licenses which are
+very different.  Therefore, to say that a work &ldquo;uses a Creative
+Commons license&rdquo; is to leave the principal questions about the
+work's licensing unanswered.  When you see such a statement in a work,
+please ask the author to change the work to state clearly and
+visibly <em>which</em>of the Creative Commons license it uses.  And if
+someone proposes to &ldquo;use a Creative Commons license&rdquo; for a
+certain work, it is vital to ask &ldquo;Which Creative Commons
+license?&rdquo; before proceeding any further.</p>
 </dd>
 
 <dt><a id="ccbysa" 
href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/legalcode";>
@@ -1804,7 +1815,7 @@
   <p>
     Updated:
     <!-- timestamp start -->
-    $Date: 2011/07/13 18:10:16 $
+    $Date: 2011/08/12 18:10:15 $
     <!-- timestamp end -->
   </p>
 </div>