The simplest solution is this, whatever is not BSD, you can remove the use path, not to include in your release. Removing those do not prevent from using SuperLU itself; those add-ons are secondary functionalities.
Sherry Li On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 1:27 PM, Drew Parsons <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Dr Li, > > thank you for maintaining the SuperLU code. We're preparing to update > to the latest version in the Debian GNU/Linux project. > > We noticed some licence changes in v5.2.1 and wanted to draw your > attention to some discrepancies which have concerned us. > > The licence for your own SuperLU code is BSD. But a handful of files > in the SuperLU package come from other sources, with their own > licences. In v5.2.1 you've prepended the BSD licence, which seems to > introduce contradictions with the original authors' licences. > > I've attached our tally of the various licences. > > In some cases the licence is compatible. The copyrights of the Xerox > Corporation have a simpler licence, and there is a close relationship > between them and your lab. > > In other cases the licence is more or less compatible, e.g. > SRC/colamd.*, but the University of Florida's copyright still remains > and isn't superseded by Berkeley's BSD. > > But the University of Minnesota's ITSOL code in EXAMPLE/*fgmr.c has a > GPL licence which simply cannot be converted to BSD. In that case the > prepended BSD notice is a contradiction. > > With MATLAB/time.m, you've removed the Mathworks copyright statement > but the code is the same. Has Mathworks released the sample code as > public domain? > > Could I ask you to audit the code licences in SuperLU? You've added > the MC64 licence notice to License.txt, perhaps the others could be > listed there too (removing their prepended BSD notices). > > Thank you kindly. > > Sincerely, > > Drew Parsons > Debian Developer >
