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, [email protected] 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
--
debian-science-maintainers mailing list
[email protected]
https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
