Hi.
SciLab has changed its licence to CeCILLv2[1], which claims to be GPLv2+ compatible. I tried reading it and it gave me a headache. It seems to contain a few dubious passages[2]. Could RH Legal have a look at it and decide if it's OK to include code licensed under it in Fedora?
Ideally, I'd like to have an answer for all four licences listed on this page, but CeCILLv2 would suffice for now.
Thanks, R.
[1] http://www.cecill.info/licences.en.html [2] In particular: second paragraph of Article 5, last paragraph of 6.4 and Article 9.4
"DM" == Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski dominik@greysector.net writes:
DM> Hi. SciLab has changed its licence to CeCILLv2[1], which claims to DM> be GPLv2+ compatible. I tried reading it and it gave me a DM> headache. It seems to contain a few dubious passages[2]. Could RH DM> Legal have a look at it and decide if it's OK to include code DM> licensed under it in Fedora?
Well, CeCILLv2 is already on the license list as acceptable.
DM> Ideally, I'd like to have an answer for all four licences listed DM> on this page, but CeCILLv2 would suffice for now.
There are three CeCILL licenses listed currently; which one is missing?
- J<
On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 21:31 +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
Hi.
SciLab has changed its licence to CeCILLv2[1], which claims to be GPLv2+ compatible. I tried reading it and it gave me a headache. It seems to contain a few dubious passages[2]. Could RH Legal have a look at it and decide if it's OK to include code licensed under it in Fedora?
Yep, they're all fine, they were in the Licensing list already:
CeCILL License v2 is Free and GPL compatible. (License: CeCILL) CeCILL-B License is Free but GPL-incompatible (License: CeCILL-B) CeCILL-C License is Free but GPL-incompatible (License: CeCILL-C)
I'll worry about v1 if something actually uses it.
~spot
On Thursday, 09 October 2008 at 22:01, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 21:31 +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
Hi.
SciLab has changed its licence to CeCILLv2[1], which claims to be GPLv2+ compatible. I tried reading it and it gave me a headache. It seems to contain a few dubious passages[2]. Could RH Legal have a look at it and decide if it's OK to include code licensed under it in Fedora?
Yep, they're all fine, they were in the Licensing list already:
CeCILL License v2 is Free and GPL compatible. (License: CeCILL) CeCILL-B License is Free but GPL-incompatible (License: CeCILL-B) CeCILL-C License is Free but GPL-incompatible (License: CeCILL-C)
I'll worry about v1 if something actually uses it.
Thanks and sorry for bothering you. I didn't think to check the Licensing list, because someone mentioned this to me as a new occurence (SciLab's licence change, that is).
Regards, R.