severity 741303 important thanks Feel++ links with petsc which has the same bug [1] and I feel quite the same as Anton about the situation 1. https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=741196
Waiting for ftpmaster to take a decision. Best regards C. On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 10:19 PM, Francesco Poli <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, 26 Mar 2014 15:52:34 +0100 Christophe Prud'homme wrote: > > > Dear Francesco Poli > > Hello Christophe, > thanks for commenting my bug report. > > > > > What is the state of this bug ? any progress with respect to scotch > > licensing ? > > I am not aware of any progress: I am the bug report submitter and, as I > said in the original bug report, I need help from other people who > volunteer to get in touch with the upstream developer of SCOTCH and > persuade him to re-license SCOTCH under the LGPL. > I have already tried to do so in the past, but I failed to convince him > that there is an issue. > > Please (re-)read https://bugs.debian.org/740463#5 for the full story. > > Are you willing to help? > > If so, please contact the main author of SCOTCH and explain the > licensing headaches he is causing to several other projects. > If you manage to persuade him (to get the necessary paperwork) to > re-license SCOTCH under the LGPL v2.1 or, at least, to dual-license it > under the GNU LGPL v2.1 or the CeCILL-C v1.0 (at the recipient's > choice), all the GPL-incompatibility issues will instantly vanish! > > > > > this is a really painful situation ! > > Indeed. > > > > > are petsc and all libraries (based on umfpack) related to this bug issues > > marked for removal from testing ? > > By looking at http://udd.debian.org/cgi-bin/autoremovals.cgi > it seems to me that feel++ and getdp are marked for auto-removal from > Debian testing, while other packages affected by SCOTCH licensing > issues are not (yet?) on the list. > I am not sure why (maybe because they are not leaf packages?). > > The complete list of SCOTCH licensing bug reports is > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?archive=both;tag=scotch-license-issues;[email protected] > > > > > have you marked also octave with an RC bug ? it uses suitesparse/umfpack > > and scotch [1] > > Could you please elaborate? > I cannot spot the dependency of octave on scotch... > > > Basically all libraries/programs using suitesparse/umfpack should have > this > > bug, no ? > > Only when they contain a file which (directly or indirectly) links with > both SCOTCH and some GPL-licensed library (such as UMFPACK)... > > > I think Libreoffice/Openoffice are using suitesparse(and scotch) and > glpk > > so it should also have the RC bug. > > libreoffice? glpk? > Could you please help me to find the dependency on scotch? I fail to > see it... > > > > > I guess that the technical solution would be to get rid of umfpack but > then > > that would disrupt a lot of software ! > > I think I clearly illustrated the solutions that I consider as > acceptable: see my original bug report(s). > Solution (A) is the most desirable, that's why I called for help to > push in that direction... > > I hope this clarifies. > > > > -- > http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt > New GnuPG key, see the transition document! > ..................................................... Francesco Poli . > GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE >
