Francesco Poli <invernom...@paranoici.org> writes: > Dear Release Team, > I am concerned that a license incompatibility (bug #741196 and the > other similar bug reports against other packages) might slip through > into the jessie release without being noticed or addressed adequately.
> Please read #741196 bug log, or, at least: > https://bugs.debian.org/741196#5 > https://bugs.debian.org/741196#53 > https://bugs.debian.org/741196#96 For those who are curious what this is about, it's a library that links with both libraries covered under the GNU GPL v2 or later and the CeCILL-C v1.0 license. Francesco believes these are incompatible licenses and has asserted this in multiple bugs, but does not appear to have presented any actual evidence of that. The FSF doesn't state a position on CeCILL-C, but explicitly says that CeCILL v2 is a GPL-compatible license [1]. Wikipedia claims that CeCILL-C is compatible with the GNU LGPL v2, which would also make it compatible with the GNU GPL v2. CeCILL-C is a less-restrictive version of CeCILL, so it would make sense for it to be compatible. [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#CeCILL The only specific claim that Francesco has made that I was able to find is that the choice of venue clause in CeCILL-C makes it incompatible. However, CeCILL also contains a choice of venue clause, and the FSF state that it is GPL-compatible. Given that they base those determinations on the advice of lawyers, I'm dubious of this argument. > What do you think should be done? Nothing, in the absence of more credible evidence that there is a license incomaptibility. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87k30y6l70....@hope.eyrie.org