Bug#618696: closed by Adam C Powell IV <hazelsct at debian.org> (Re: elmer: multiple licensing issues)

[Francesco Poli]

On Sat, 07 May 2011 23:38:38 +0200 Sylvestre Ledru wrote:

> Le samedi 07 mai 2011 à 23:20 +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit :
> > since I don't think CeCILL-C meets the DFSG: 
> A bit out of topic but you are probably wrong here. All CeCILL licenses
> are DFSG compliant.

Where may I find a detailed analysis that explains how the CeCILL-C
license meets the DFSG?

I am only aware of the following analysis:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2008/01/msg00171.html
Please note that I have already cited this analysis, see
http://bugs.debian.org/618696#41

The analysis by Joe Smith highlights the GPL-incompatibility and two
possible DFSG-freeness issues. I agree that those issues make the
license fail to meet the DFSG. Especially, the choice of venue is an
issue that has been discussed to death on debian-legal for various
licenses (with disagreeing opinions from many people): my own personal
opinion is that choice of venue clauses are non-free restrictions.




-- 
 http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt
 New GnuPG key, see the transition document!
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82  3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/debian-science-maintainers/attachments/20110508/5802256f/attachment.pgp>