Your message dated Mon, 9 May 2016 22:23:31 +0200
with message-id
<cam8zjqsdcowobx_pf5jep+_ug-+dxmwcznyz+iwrxf3m8y4...@mail.gmail.com>
and subject line getdp is GPL-licensed, but links with both GPL-licensed and
GPL-incompatible libraries
has caused the Debian Bug report #741204,
regarding getdp is GPL-licensed, but links with both GPL-licensed and
GPL-incompatible libraries
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 ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)
--
741204: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=741204
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: getdp
Version: 2.4.2-1
Severity: serious
Justification: Policy 2.3
User: debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
Usertags: scotch-license-issues
Hello,
the program /usr/bin/getdp is under the GNU GPL v2 (only? or later?
the debian/copyright is not too clear on this aspect) and links with:
=> libumfpack.so.5.6.2, which is under the GNU GPL v2 or later
=> libcholmod.so.2.1.2, which has parts under the GNU GPL v2 or later
=> libptscotch-5.1.so and libptscotcherr-5.1.so, which are released
under the GPL-incompatible terms of the CeCILL-C v1.0 license
=> libpetsc.so.3.4.2 and libslepc.so.3.4.2, which, though not being
under strong copyleft or under copyleft at all, link, in their
turn, with the above three libraries...
This seems to mean that package getdp includes a file which is
GPL-licensed and links with both GPL-licensed and GPL-incompatible
libraries.
Please refer to the similar bug #740463 for some further details about
the SCOTCH licensing issues.
I think the possible solutions to the issue for getdp are, in
descending order of desirability:
(A) SCOTCH copyright holders should be contacted and persuaded to
re-license (or dual-license) it under GPLv2-or-later-compatible terms
(B) SCOTCH should be substituted with a GPLv2-or-later-compatible
replacement, if any is available (METIS seems to be at least
GPLv3-or-later-compatible, see https://bugs.debian.org/740463#15 )
(C) GPL-licensed library (such as UMFPACK and CHOLMOD) copyright
holders, as well as GetDP copyright holders, should be asked to relax
the copyleft (for instance by switching to the LGPL v2.1) or add
license exceptions that give permission to link their works with
code released under CeCILL-C v1.0
As mentioned in previous bug reports, the best solution is (A):
I therefore renew my call for help to push in the direction of
{re|dual}-licensing SCOTCH under the GNU LGPL v2.1:
please see https://bugs.debian.org/740463#5 for the details.
Thanks for your time!
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Package: getdp
Version: 2.7.0-1
It seems this bug should have been closed in getdp 2.7.0-1 when
lib[scotch]metis was removed from build dependencies.
[ Christophe Trophime ]
* debian/control:
+ remove lib[scotch]metis, gmsh[-tetgen], libgmsh[-tetgen]-dev,
libhdf5-mpi-dev from Build-Depends. Closes: #755973
--- End Message ---
--
debian-science-maintainers mailing list
debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers