CeCILL licence

[Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski]

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

-- 
Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann
RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org | MPlayer http://mplayerhq.hu
"Faith manages."
        -- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"

[Jason L Tibbitts III]

> >>>> "DM" == Dominik 'Rathann'
> Mierzejewski <dominik(a)greysector.net&gt; 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<

[Tom Callaway]

On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 14:59 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>  There are three CeCILL licenses listed currently; which one is
>  missing? 
CeCILL v1... but since I'm not aware of anything that uses it, we've
never bothered.

~spot

[Tom Callaway]

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

[Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski]

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.

-- 
Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann
RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org | MPlayer http://mplayerhq.hu
"Faith manages."
        -- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"