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.
