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

[Sylvestre Ledru]

Le dimanche 08 mai 2011 à 15:18 +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit :
> 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 
CeCILL-C is equivalent to the LGPL, not GPL. CeCILL is GPL compabible.
It has been designed with the FSF to be fully compatible with the LGPL.
It is why I stated that the CeCILL-C is DFSG. After that, I apologize if
it has been considered as not DFSG on debian-legal mailing list. I
wasn't aware of that.

Sylvestre