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 [email protected] immediately.) -- 741204: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=741204 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---Package: getdp Version: 2.4.2-1 Severity: serious Justification: Policy 2.3 User: [email protected] 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 ---
