Hi Simon,

Let me preface this with the fact that I am also not a lawyer 🙂.
Regarding your second point

On 2024-01-17 16:19, Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2. It is not plain LGPL but considering 3 exceptions.
> 
> ...
> 
> And from my understanding, these exceptions make the software license
> non-free.
> 
> Well, I am not a lawyer (IANAL). 🙂

From my understanding, the (L)GPL has a specific clause to avoid these
kinds of restrictions, keeping the source code free. From section 7:

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
If the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice
stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a
further restriction, you may remove that term.
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

That being said, I fully understand this is a difficult licensing case.
I wouldn't mind keeping the issue open as a note to future developers,
since CAMB, as far as I know, is relatively common software in the
cosmology field.

I would leave it up to you and Oleg to decide.

Best wishes,

Troy