Re: freeness and compatibility of CeCILL-C licence
On Wed, 2017-03-22 at 13:07 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Drew Parsons writes ("freeness and compatibility of CeCILL-C
> > There are various discussions about the status of the CeCILL-C
> > licence
> > v1 (and other CeCILL licences) in the history of this mailing
> > list.
> > 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?
> > CeCILL-C v1 itself is http://www.cecill.info/licences/Licence_CeCIL
> > L-C_V1-en.html
> I think this is a DFSG-free GPL-incompatible copyleft licence.
> It's GPL-incompatible because it is not identical to the GPL and
> requires derivatives to have the same licence.
If I'm reading that right, we can link it from BSD and LGPL libraries.
Currently MUMPS is in Debian used by
which is used by dolfin LGPL
So there should be no conflict using mumps with CeCILL-C, except
perhaps with code-aster.
Incidentally, SCOTCH is also CeCILL-C, and is already in the archive
(and also used by many of these packages).
> Francesco Poli dislikes the choice of law and courts clause, but I
> think it's fine.
I suppose it is a bit of an annoying clause. Then again, if a litigant
wants to fly me to Paris to testify, maybe I can live with that...
> (IMO it would not be fine if it specified Russian
> Chinese courts.)
Bit extreme to declare entire nation's jurisprudence corrupt. Unless
you mean the court's judgement will be ignored, in which case it
doesn't matter where the court is anyway.