For Approval: CeCILL

[Wilson, Andrew]

John Cowan wrote:

>> May I suggest that it would be more intellectually honest, and more
readily
>> comprehensible to the world at large, to simply dual-license your
code CeCILL/GPL
>> from the time of publication?
>
> It's not the same thing.  Dual-licensing their own code under CeCILL
and
> GPL would ensure that their original code could be used in GPLed
programs,
> but modified code not separately dual-licensed under the GPL could not
be.
> Putting the auto-dual-license provision into the license ensures that
> all modified CeCILL code is also GPL-compatible.

I didn't say dual-licensing was the same thing; I said it would it would
be more honest to be up front with the thinly-disguised, optional
GPL-ness of
any code primarily licensed under CeCILL.

To be somewhat undiplomatic, this looks like an effort to pacify
a handful of Eurocratic lawyers by letting them write their own vanity
license,
which just about everyone else can then effectively ignore by adding one
line of GPL code to the mix.

Andy Wilson
Intel Open Source Technology Center