[Bug 592579] Review Request: Frama-c - Framework for source code analysis of C software

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=592579

--- Comment #32 from David A. Wheeler <dwheeler at dwheeler.com> 2010-06-28 13:55:24 EDT ---
After looking further at this, I think that the license is a non-issue.

Comment 3 notes that this software uses the QPL.  The QPL is, of course, an
already-approved FLOSS license.  There are only two modifications, and both
cannot possibly affect whether or not it's FLOSS:
1. An *additional* permission.  If you DON'T release to your program
   to the general public, you don't have to comply with QPL requirement 6c.
   ("You must ensure that all modifications included in the
   machine-executable forms are available under the terms of this license.")
   Giving ADDITIONAL permissions can't make a FLOSS license non-FLOSS.
2. A choice of venue ("This license is governed by the Laws of France.")
   I'm not crazy about choice-of-venue clauses, but other FLOSS licenses
   have them; some even specifically use French jurisdiction (e.g., CeCILL).
   So that cannot make the software non-FLOSS either.

Therefore, this software is FLOSS as well.  At least, that's how I see it. 
Comments welcome!  I wish legal had responded, but they *still* haven't, and in
this case the answer seems crystal clear.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.