For Approval: CeCILL

[Wilson, Andrew]

Stéphane Dalmas wrote:

> From a legal point of view CeCILL would have been better without the 
> the compatibility clause. Including it was a difficult choice but we did it
> to show respect for the work of the FSF and the community that use and
> endorse it. If the main problem the community can now see with CeCILL is this
> clause, this is puzzling to me.

I will again say my main concern with CeCILL continues to be that it
can be construed as a thin -- indeed, nearly transparent -- shim layer over GPL.
However, in my initial reply, I also raised two substantive points about
CeCILL: (1) the totally unbounded obligation to provide source code,
and (2) (what appears to be) a broad-form defensive termination provision
in the event of IP disputes.  Haven't seen any response to these questions.

Andy Wilson
Intel Open Source Technology Center