Re: Mathworks-hosted GPL'd software

[Sergei Steshenko]

--- On Wed, 2/17/10, Richard Stallman <address@hidden> wrote:

> From: Richard Stallman <address@hidden>
> Subject: Re: Mathworks-hosted GPL'd software
> To: "Judd Storrs" <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden
> Date: Wednesday, February 17, 2010, 11:31 AM
>     By the way, as a rabid
> conspiracy theorist, I would point out that
>     Mathworks is probably more concerned about
> Scilab than Octave. Scilab
>     is very cozy with industry partners in
> particular Mathworks'
>     arch-enemy National Instruments.
> 
> (Just so people know, Scilab is non-free software.)


Is Scilab _really_ non-free software ?

This i what I read (pay attention, from www.fsf.org):

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/ :

"
CeCILL version 2

    The CeCILL is a free software license, explicitly compatible with the GNU 
GPL.

    The text of the CeCILL uses a couple of biased terms that ought to be 
avoided: “intellectual property” (see this article) and “protection” (see this 
article); this decision was unfortunate, because reading the license tends to 
spread the presuppositions of those terms. However, this does not cause any 
particular problem for the programs released under the CeCILL.

    Section 9.4 of the CeCILL commits the program's developers to certain forms 
of cooperation with the users, if someone attacks the program with a patent. 
You might look at that as a problem for the developer; however, if you are sure 
you would want to cooperate with the users in those ways anyway, then it isn't 
a problem for you.
".

Does everyone see the

"
The CeCILL is a free software license, explicitly compatible with the GNU GPL.
"

clause, specifically, "is a free software license" part, even more
specifically the "free software" part ?

Regards,
  Sergei.