Closed leventov closed 6 years ago
Under what license is Spoon released: CeCILL-C 1, 2, or 2.1?
According to License.txt this is CeCILL-C 1, see https://github.com/INRIA/spoon/blob/master/LICENSE.txt#L516
With what licenses is it compatible?
Good question, let us ask to Inria law people.
This page: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html says that CeCILL-C 1 is incompatible with GNU licenses.
Please consider relicensing under CeCILL-C 2.1 (at least; more commonly used and more permissive licenses are better) that should be compatible with LGPL.
It seems that currently, probably all software that depends on Spoon should be CeCILL-C 1-licensed, that's hard to believe in.
CeCILL-C is similar to LGPL, it means that:
Under what license some source code that is modification of or amendment to Spoon source code should be released?
The same license, CeCiLL-C
Under what license some source code that uses Spoon as a Java library should be released?
Basically anything, incl. proprietary licenses.
It's not, however, how LGPL works, unless you provide the library only in runtime and don't bundle it into any kind of uberjar.
It's not, however, how LGPL works, unless you provide the library only in runtime and don't bundle it into any kind of uberjar.
That not what I understand when reading CeCILL-C FAQ:
If you distribute a program that is a modification of a program under one of the licenses in the CeCILL family, or that incorporates such a program,totally or partially, that is where the differences are. [...] If the program is under CeCILL-C, you can also distribute your program under any license but you have to distribute under CeCILL the possible modifications you did to the original source code (and mention the use you made of the initial program).
Please consider relicensing under CeCILL-C 2.1
Note that "CeCILL-C 2.1" does not exist. There is only "CeCILL 2.1" (no "C" version).
Relicensing under CeCILL 2.1 would be much less permissive for users.
Ok, to wrap up this question: do I understand it right that CeCILL-C 1 is more permissive than LGPL but less permissive than Apache, MIT, BSD licenses?
do I understand it right that CeCILL-C 1 is more permissive than LGPL but less permissive than Apache, MIT, BSD licenses?
It's surely less permissive than Apache, MIT and BSD licenses, as it should be released using the same license if changes has been done inside the library. Still I cannot say it's more permissive than LGPL as I always considered it as a "LGPL for french law", but I'm not a lawyer :)
@leventov I close this one. Don't hesitate to comment back if you have further question.
FYI Spoon is now dual-licensed MIT & Cecill-C, see #2950
Apologies for using this thread for a related question, does anyone know whether the Cecill-C licenses are compatible with Apache 2, which versions of Cecill-C (if applicable), and whether this is one-way or both-ways (e.g. Apache 2 can be embedded in GPL3, but not the other way round). Thanks!