On 30/03/2017 03:27, Drew Parsons wrote:
On Thu, 2017-03-23 at 10:51 +0800, Drew Parsons wrote:
If I'm reading that right, we can link it from BSD and LGPL
libraries.
Currently MUMPS is in Debian used by
getfem++ LGPL
petsc BSD-2
which is used by dolfin LGPL
trilinos BSD
On Thu, 2017-03-23 at 10:51 +0800, Drew Parsons wrote:
>
> If I'm reading that right, we can link it from BSD and LGPL
> libraries.
> Currently MUMPS is in Debian used by
>
> getfem++ LGPL
> petsc BSD-2
> which is used by dolfin LGPL
> trilinos BSD
> code-aster GPL2
>
> So there
On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 10:38:37 + Ian Jackson wrote:
> Dmitry Alexandrov writes ("Re: freeness and compatibility of CeCILL-C
> licence"):
> > [Ian:]
> > > (IMO it would not be fine if it specified Russian or Chinese courts.)
> >
>
On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 02:47:43 +0300 Dmitry Alexandrov wrote:
[...]
> > Francesco Poli dislikes the choice of law and courts clause, but I
> > think it's fine.
For the record, I think a choice of law clause is acceptable.
On the other hand, I consider a choice of venue clause as a non-free
On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 11:04:48 + Ian Jackson wrote:
> Drew Parsons writes ("Re: freeness and compatibility of CeCILL-C licence"):
> > If I'm reading that right, we can link it from BSD and LGPL libraries.
> > Currently MUMPS is in Debian used by
> ...
> > code
On Thu, 2017-03-23 at 11:04 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Drew Parsons writes ("Re: freeness and compatibility of CeCILL-C
> licence"):
> > If I'm reading that right, we can link it from BSD and LGPL
> > libraries.
> > Currently MUMPS is in Debian us
Drew Parsons writes ("Re: freeness and compatibility of CeCILL-C licence"):
> If I'm reading that right, we can link it from BSD and LGPL libraries.
> Currently MUMPS is in Debian used by
...
> code-aster GPL2
This is a problem then.
Is there any possibility of CeCILL bei
Dmitry Alexandrov writes ("Re: freeness and compatibility of CeCILL-C licence"):
> [Ian:]
> > (IMO it would not be fine if it specified Russian or Chinese courts.)
>
> Interesting idea. Any substantiation for such a discrimination of origin?
Some courts are more trustworthy than others.
Ian.
On Wed, 2017-03-22 at 13:07 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Drew Parsons writes ("freeness and compatibility of CeCILL-C
> licence"):
> > 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
[Sorry for sending unfinished letter.]
> Francesco Poli dislikes the choice of law and courts clause, but I
> think it's fine.
IBM PL v1.0 contains a choice of law clause and it’s listed as suitable for
Debian’s main [0].
As for arbitration clause, could anyone explain, what’s the practical
> Francesco Poli dislikes the choice of law and courts clause, but I
> think it's fine. (IMO it would not be fine if it specified Russian or
> Chinese courts.)
Interesting idea. Any substationation for such a discrimination of origin?
Drew Parsons writes ("freeness and compatibility of CeCILL-C licence"):
> 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
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
13 matches
Mail list logo
