[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: freeness and compatibility of CeCILL-C licence

On Tue, 21 Mar 2017 23:51:12 +0800 Drew Parsons wrote:

> There are various discussions about the status of the CeCILL-C licence
> v1 (and other CeCILL licences) in the history of this mailing list.

The CeCILL-C license is a GPL-incompatible license, which may even be
considered to fail to meet the DFSG.
I personally consider works (solely) released under the terms of the
CeCILL-C license as non-free.

for an analysis of the license.

It's GPL-incompatible, since it includes some restrictions not
included in the GPL (at the very least, the choice of venue clause) and
has no explicit conversion-to-GPL clause.

Perhaps it's LGPL-compatible, but that's not especially interesting,
since being LGPL-compatible is not difficult...

> It's not listed at https://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/
> but when it last came up on this list, Thibaut Paumard suggested it's
> fine, LGPL compatible, 
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2010/01/msg00064.html
> Is this still the consensus?

Thibaut just stated that it's LGPL-compatible. I cannot find any
statement about it being "fine".

> The French scientific computing community have been been quite active,
> with many packages released under CeCILL licences.

Indeed, and they increased license proliferation, which is really
really bad...   :-(

> If CeCILL-C is an acceptable licence,

I personally do not consider it acceptable.

Please note that I am a Debian Project external contributor (I am not a
member of the Project) and I do not speak on behalf the Debian Project.
What I expressed are my own personal opinions.

 There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory!
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82  3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE

Attachment: pgpJ_19wqY27m.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: