Your message dated Mon, 12 Oct 2026 19:45:51 +0200
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Close Bug #1150705
has caused the Debian Bug report #1150705,
regarding <Bugreport schreiben>: <short description of the bug>
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)
--
1150705: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1150705
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: licensecheck
Version: 3.3.9-1
Severity: serious
Tags: upstream
X-Debbugs-Cc: [email protected]
Hello
studying how licensecheck works I found this file
t/exception/Cecill/tv_implementpoly.reference
which is under the
CeCILL-C with Sollya-4.1 exception
The license CeCILL is not compliant with the DFSG because of § 13.2
Mandatory Choice of Venue (Article 13.2)
The Clause: "Failing an amicable solution... disagreements or
disputes shall be referred to the Paris Courts having jurisdiction..."
DFSG Conflict: This is considered a "Choice of Venue" clause,
which the debian-legal community almost universally rejects as
non-free. By forcing any user or contributor—whether they live in
New Zealand, Argentina, or Japan—to travel to Paris and navigate
the French legal system to defend themselves, the license imposes
an unreasonable, prohibitive burden. Debian considers this a
restriction on the core freedoms to use, modify, and distribute
the software (acting essentially as a fee or restriction,
violating the spirit of DFSG #1: Free Redistribution).
Discrimination Against Amateurs/Beginners (Preamble & Article 9.1)
The Clause: The text states that the software's "use is reserved
for developers and experienced professionals having in-depth computer
knowledge."
DFSG Conflict: This directly conflicts with DFSG #5: No Discrimination
Against Persons or Groups. A free software license cannot say that a
tool is only for experts, businesses, or researchers. If this text is
interpreted legally as a usage restriction (rather than just a
poorly-worded warranty disclaimer), it prevents students, amateurs,
and beginners from exercising their right to use the software.
The Obnoxious UI Advertising Requirement (Article 6.4)
The Clause: The licensee must "ensure that use of the Software, its
intellectual property notices and the fact that it is governed by the
Agreement is indicated in a text that is easily accessible,
specifically
from the interface of any Derivative Software."
DFSG Conflict: This clause acts as an overly aggressive "advertising
clause." While preserving copyright notices in source files is required
and DFSG-compliant, forcing developers to alter the user interface of
any derivative software restricts how developers can build and design
their own tools. This conflicts with DFSG #3: Derived Works, which
requires
that developers have the freedom to modify the software and create
derivatives without arbitrary restrictions on how those derivatives
must
function or be displayed (for example, if you make a headless, command-
line, or embedded derivative, surfacing text in an "interface" is
practically impossible).
Over-Restrictive Notice Preservation (Article 6.4)
The Clause: The licensee undertakes "to reproduce said notices, in an
identical manner, in the copies of the Software modified or not".
DFSG Conflict: While DFSG #4 allows licenses to require the integrity
of the author's source code and copyright notices, demanding that
notices
be preserved in an "identical manner" without allowing any format
modifications can be a minor friction point for DFSG freeness. If a
Debian
packager needs to convert documentation formats or refactor code
structures, absolute identical reproduction of notice blocks can create
technical/legal hurdles.
Kind regards
Mechtilde
-- System Information:
Debian Release: forky/sid
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (400, 'testing'), (300, 'unstable'), (200, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Kernel: Linux 7.2.9+deb14-amd64 (SMP w/16 CPU threads; PREEMPT)
Locale: LANG=de_DE.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=de_DE.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE
not set
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /usr/bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
LSM: AppArmor: enabled
Versions of packages licensecheck depends on:
ii libfeature-compat-class-perl 0.08-1
ii libfeature-compat-try-perl 0.05-1
ii libio-interactive-perl 1.027-1
ii liblog-any-adapter-screen-perl 0.141-2
ii liblog-any-perl 1.720-1
ii libnamespace-clean-perl 0.27-2
ii libpath-iterator-rule-perl 1.015-2
ii libpath-tiny-perl 0.150-1
ii libpod-constants-perl 0.19-2
ii libstring-copyright-perl 0.003014-1
ii libstring-escape-perl 2010.002-3
ii libstring-license-perl 0.0.11-1
ii perl 5.42.3-1
Versions of packages licensecheck recommends:
ii libregexp-pattern-license-perl 3.11.2-1
Versions of packages licensecheck suggests:
ii bash-completion 1:2.16.0-8
-- no debconf information
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Package: licensecheck
Version: 3.3.9-1
Comment: closed duplicate
--
Mechtilde Stehmann
## Debian Developer
## PGP encryption welcome
## F0E3 7F3D C87A 4998 2899 39E7 F287 7BBA 141A AD7F
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--- End Message ---
