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. See https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2008/01/msg00171.html 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. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ 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
pgpYbj0ql3ua2.pgp
Description: PGP signature
