Russ Allbery <r...@debian.org> writes: > 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.
Ah! I'm sorry -- I missed a subtlety here. The CeCILL license can be explicitly converted to the GPL v2, hence shedding its choice of venue clause. The CeCILL-C license doesn't have an explicit conversion clause, which is why I believe Francesco feels it is a problem. Okay, this is actually a somewhat reasonable concern, in my opinion. The FSF does declare other licenses as being GPL-incompatible for having choice of venue clauses. See, for example: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#lucent102 I agree that this may actually be a problem. I don't think it's a particularly *large* problem -- historically, we've not treated choice of venue clauses with a great deal of urgency. This is also relying on the assumption that a library linked with a GPL v2 library requires every other library linked with it to be relicensble under the GPL v2, something that I think we believe in principle, but which we have not always enforced elsewhere in the archive. But I was wrong to dismiss this -- the choice of venue clause is usually something the FSF considers problematic. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
