> However, why not just adopt the plain GNU GPL v2 ? CECILL is from INRIA too and it is also compatible with the french law ! > > > Firstoff, from a technical point of view, shipping the *exact same > > > code* in two different packages does not seem to be a good idea. > > > Could this duplication of code be avoided? > > > Is it possible to link or otherwise use the code included in the > > > mesa package, rather than packaging another copy of it? > > Well, it is the exact same code (ie not rewrote) but in Java... and I > > think JOGL devs prefer to avoid JNI code. > > Then it's not the *exact same code*: it's a translation in Java. > That kinda explains why the original code included in mesa packages > cannot be directly used. I used the words of the guys from Sun on this, but yes, that explains ... > > > > > Anyway, from a DFSG-freeness point of view, that license is indeed > > > problematic: see http://bugs.debian.org/368560 for the details. > > > Unfortunately, there seems to have been too little progress on this > > > bug so far. > > Do you know if anyone contacted the owner of the code ? > > Or if anything is planned to fix this issue ? > > I have not been directly involved in the issue: I think that the people > who participated in the bug discussion should be contacted for further > information. OK, I sent an email to this bug to learn if there is anything new ! Sylvestre
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=