On Wed, 2017-03-22 at 13:07 +0000, 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 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 getfem++ LGPL petsc BSD-2 which is used by dolfin LGPL trilinos BSD code-aster GPL2 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 > or > 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.