Debian NEW review of mumps 5.9.0-1exp1: ACCEPTED

[Drew Parsons]

Thanks Andrew.   This licence had been assessed previously, was 
considered GPL-incompatible then but not LGPL-incompatible.
https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2010/01/msg00064.html
https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2017/03/msg00019.html

It would be extremely disruptive to lose the package.
I'm pretty sure it's not the authors' intention to be incompatible, 
though I don't expect enthusiasm for switching to LGPL.
Perhaps they're open to ensuring consistency with CeCILL.

I'll review the new notes in any case.

Drew


On 2026-05-04 12:57, awm at debian.org wrote:
> The Debian NEW review of mumps 5.9.0-1exp1 has been completed.
> 
> Decision: ACCEPTED
> Reviewer: Andrew McMillan
> 
> Review comment:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> This is already a package in Debian, and has been for some time, 
> however the
> license used here (i.e. "CeCILL-C") is *not* compatible with the Debian 
> Free
> Software Guidelines, as explained in the detailed note on the review.
> 
> I recommend discussing this with upstream, to see if licensing can be 
> done
> with a different license (e.g. LGPL-2+) or if a newer version of 
> CeCILL-C
> can be written to address the issues with the license (as was done with 
> the
> CeCILL license).
> 
> The final alternative, of course, is to move the package to non-free, 
> but
> let's hope that doesn't have to happen!
> 
> For now, I have accepted the package, on the basis that it is already 
> in
> Debian, and we don't want to disrupt things for what could be a 
> protracted
> exercise.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Full review details: https://dfsg-new-queue.debian.org/reviews/mumps