Bug#741196: libpetsc3.4.2: libpetsc.so.3.4.2 links with both GPL-licensed and GPL-incompatible libraries
On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 18:12:41 +0800 Drew Parsons wrote: > Source: petsc > Followup-For: Bug #741196 > > CeCILL explicitly asserts that its licence is compatible with GPL. > > http://www.cecill.info/faq.en.html#compatible > > I think we can close this bug. As said for bug #741172, we are talking about the CeCILL-C license, *not* the CeCILL license! Please do *not* close this bug report! -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgp020_XBGkTw.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#741196: libpetsc3.4.2: libpetsc.so.3.4.2 links with both GPL-licensed and GPL-incompatible libraries
Source: petsc Followup-For: Bug #741196 CeCILL explicitly asserts that its licence is compatible with GPL. http://www.cecill.info/faq.en.html#compatible I think we can close this bug.
Bug#741196: libpetsc3.4.2: libpetsc.so.3.4.2 links with both GPL-licensed and GPL-incompatible libraries
On 18/12/16 at 11:26 +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: > On Sat, 29 Oct 2016 18:15:19 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote: > > > On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 19:41:08 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote: > > > > > On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 20:47:57 +0200 Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > > > > > > On 17/09/16 at 10:13 +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 19:23:48 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote: > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > This is the kind of help I have been asking for since I filed these > > > > > > bug reports. > > > > > > If you can get in touch with François Pellegrini, directly or > > > > > > indirectly, and explain the issue to him in a convincing manner, > > > > > > then I would be really really grateful. > > > > > > > > > > > > As I said, I tried multiple times, but François no longer replies > > > > > > to my e-mail messages. That's why I need help from people more > > > > > > likely > > > > > > to be listened to. > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > Hello again Lucas, > > > > > is there any progress on this issue? > > > > > > > > Not that I'm aware of, sorry. > > > > > > I apologize, but your reply is not too clear to me. > > > Could you please elaborate a bit? > > > > > > Have you tried to get in touch with François Pellegrini, directly or > > > indirectly? > > > Have you tried to explain the issue to him and to persuade him that > > > SCOTCH should be re-licensed (or dual-licensed) under > > > GPLv2-or-later-compatible terms? > > > > Ping? > > Second ping? I tried, but didn't succeed.
Bug#741196: libpetsc3.4.2: libpetsc.so.3.4.2 links with both GPL-licensed and GPL-incompatible libraries
On Sat, 29 Oct 2016 18:15:19 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote: > On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 19:41:08 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote: > > > On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 20:47:57 +0200 Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > > > > On 17/09/16 at 10:13 +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > > > > On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 19:23:48 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote: > > > > > [...] > > > > > This is the kind of help I have been asking for since I filed these > > > > > bug reports. > > > > > If you can get in touch with François Pellegrini, directly or > > > > > indirectly, and explain the issue to him in a convincing manner, > > > > > then I would be really really grateful. > > > > > > > > > > As I said, I tried multiple times, but François no longer replies > > > > > to my e-mail messages. That's why I need help from people more likely > > > > > to be listened to. > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > Hello again Lucas, > > > > is there any progress on this issue? > > > > > > Not that I'm aware of, sorry. > > > > I apologize, but your reply is not too clear to me. > > Could you please elaborate a bit? > > > > Have you tried to get in touch with François Pellegrini, directly or > > indirectly? > > Have you tried to explain the issue to him and to persuade him that > > SCOTCH should be re-licensed (or dual-licensed) under > > GPLv2-or-later-compatible terms? > > Ping? Second ping? -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpazvVANAvU8.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#741196: libpetsc3.4.2: libpetsc.so.3.4.2 links with both GPL-licensed and GPL-incompatible libraries
On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 19:41:08 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote: > On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 20:47:57 +0200 Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > > On 17/09/16 at 10:13 +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > > > On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 19:23:48 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote: > > > [...] > > > > This is the kind of help I have been asking for since I filed these > > > > bug reports. > > > > If you can get in touch with François Pellegrini, directly or > > > > indirectly, and explain the issue to him in a convincing manner, > > > > then I would be really really grateful. > > > > > > > > As I said, I tried multiple times, but François no longer replies > > > > to my e-mail messages. That's why I need help from people more likely > > > > to be listened to. > > > [...] > > > > > > Hello again Lucas, > > > is there any progress on this issue? > > > > Not that I'm aware of, sorry. > > I apologize, but your reply is not too clear to me. > Could you please elaborate a bit? > > Have you tried to get in touch with François Pellegrini, directly or > indirectly? > Have you tried to explain the issue to him and to persuade him that > SCOTCH should be re-licensed (or dual-licensed) under > GPLv2-or-later-compatible terms? Ping? -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpyLfEvOcY94.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#741196: libpetsc3.4.2: libpetsc.so.3.4.2 links with both GPL-licensed and GPL-incompatible libraries
On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 20:47:57 +0200 Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > On 17/09/16 at 10:13 +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > > On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 19:23:48 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 19:27:47 +0200 Lucas Nussbaum wrote: [...] > > > > who is very active in the French Free Software community. One of the > > > > colleagues (same Inria research team) of Francois is Brice Goglin, who > > > > is a DD. So it might be useful to try to contact them. > > > > > > This is the kind of help I have been asking for since I filed these > > > bug reports. > > > If you can get in touch with François Pellegrini, directly or > > > indirectly, and explain the issue to him in a convincing manner, > > > then I would be really really grateful. > > > > > > As I said, I tried multiple times, but François no longer replies > > > to my e-mail messages. That's why I need help from people more likely > > > to be listened to. > > [...] > > > > Hello again Lucas, > > is there any progress on this issue? > > Not that I'm aware of, sorry. I apologize, but your reply is not too clear to me. Could you please elaborate a bit? Have you tried to get in touch with François Pellegrini, directly or indirectly? Have you tried to explain the issue to him and to persuade him that SCOTCH should be re-licensed (or dual-licensed) under GPLv2-or-later-compatible terms? -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgptnpRTGuU3k.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#741196: libpetsc3.4.2: libpetsc.so.3.4.2 links with both GPL-licensed and GPL-incompatible libraries
On 17/09/16 at 10:13 +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 19:23:48 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote: > > > On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 19:27:47 +0200 Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > [...] > > > It seems that the main SCOTCH copyright holders is Francois Pellegrini, > > > > It is my understanding that he is the main author, but the copyright > > holder is INRIA (along with ENSEIRB and CNRS). > > Please see > > https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/s/scotch/copyright-5.1.12b.dfsg-2 > > > > However, I agree with you that François is really the person to be > > persuaded. > > > > Once he is convinced that SCOTCH should be re-licensed, I think he > > will know who has to be contacted, in order to obtain the necessary > > paperwork. Or, at least, I hope so. > > > > > who is very active in the French Free Software community. One of the > > > colleagues (same Inria research team) of Francois is Brice Goglin, who > > > is a DD. So it might be useful to try to contact them. > > > > This is the kind of help I have been asking for since I filed these > > bug reports. > > If you can get in touch with François Pellegrini, directly or > > indirectly, and explain the issue to him in a convincing manner, > > then I would be really really grateful. > > > > As I said, I tried multiple times, but François no longer replies > > to my e-mail messages. That's why I need help from people more likely > > to be listened to. > [...] > > Hello again Lucas, > is there any progress on this issue? Not that I'm aware of, sorry. Lucas
Bug#741196: libpetsc3.4.2: libpetsc.so.3.4.2 links with both GPL-licensed and GPL-incompatible libraries
On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 19:23:48 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote: > On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 19:27:47 +0200 Lucas Nussbaum wrote: [...] > > It seems that the main SCOTCH copyright holders is Francois Pellegrini, > > It is my understanding that he is the main author, but the copyright > holder is INRIA (along with ENSEIRB and CNRS). > Please see > https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/s/scotch/copyright-5.1.12b.dfsg-2 > > However, I agree with you that François is really the person to be > persuaded. > > Once he is convinced that SCOTCH should be re-licensed, I think he > will know who has to be contacted, in order to obtain the necessary > paperwork. Or, at least, I hope so. > > > who is very active in the French Free Software community. One of the > > colleagues (same Inria research team) of Francois is Brice Goglin, who > > is a DD. So it might be useful to try to contact them. > > This is the kind of help I have been asking for since I filed these > bug reports. > If you can get in touch with François Pellegrini, directly or > indirectly, and explain the issue to him in a convincing manner, > then I would be really really grateful. > > As I said, I tried multiple times, but François no longer replies > to my e-mail messages. That's why I need help from people more likely > to be listened to. [...] Hello again Lucas, is there any progress on this issue? Have you managed to get in touch with François Pellegrini? Have you succeeded in explaining the issue to him and in persuading him that SCOTCH should be re-licensed (or dual-licensed) under GPLv2-or-later-compatible terms? I really hope this long-standing issue may be solved for the best very soon... Please let me know. Thanks for your time and helpfulness! -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpi6e5v2BPm8.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#741196: libpetsc3.4.2: libpetsc.so.3.4.2 links with both GPL-licensed and GPL-incompatible libraries
On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 19:27:47 +0200 Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 09/03/14 at 22:26 +0100, Francesco Poli (wintermute) wrote:
[...]
> > (A) SCOTCH copyright holders should be contacted and persuaded to
> > re-license (or dual-license) it under GPLv2-or-later-compatible terms
>
> Hi Francesco,
Hello Lucas,
thanks for following up on this licensing issue!
I am very glad you stepped in.
>
> Have you tried the above?
Yes, I have, multiple times.
As I said in the original bug report:
| As stated in other bug reports, the best solution is (A). Thus, I 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.
The relevant part of #740463#5 is:
| The best solution is (A): having SCOTCH re-licensed under
| GPLv2-or-later-compatible terms would eliminate all the SCOTCH
| license incompatibility issues.
| Since SCOTCH used to be LGPL-licensed (before switching to CeCILL-C!
| oh nooo!), I got in touch with the main author of SCOTCH
| (François Pellegrini) and tried to persuade him that SCOTCH should
| be re-licensed, in the hope that he would discuss the issue with
| the actual copyright holders (INRIA) and obtain the necessary paperwork.
| I talked to him in 2011, explaining the issue, but I apparently failed
| to convince him that there indeed is an issue.
| I have recently tried again to get in touch with him, but I haven't
| succeeded.
|
| Now I really need your help: please try hard to pursue solution (A).
| Succeeding would solve the issue for elmerfem, but also really benefit
| several other packages which suffer from similar problems with SCOTCH.
>
> It seems that the main SCOTCH copyright holders is Francois Pellegrini,
It is my understanding that he is the main author, but the copyright
holder is INRIA (along with ENSEIRB and CNRS).
Please see
https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/s/scotch/copyright-5.1.12b.dfsg-2
However, I agree with you that François is really the person to be
persuaded.
Once he is convinced that SCOTCH should be re-licensed, I think he
will know who has to be contacted, in order to obtain the necessary
paperwork. Or, at least, I hope so.
> who is very active in the French Free Software community. One of the
> colleagues (same Inria research team) of Francois is Brice Goglin, who
> is a DD. So it might be useful to try to contact them.
This is the kind of help I have been asking for since I filed these
bug reports.
If you can get in touch with François Pellegrini, directly or
indirectly, and explain the issue to him in a convincing manner,
then I would be really really grateful.
As I said, I tried multiple times, but François no longer replies
to my e-mail messages. That's why I need help from people more likely
to be listened to.
>
> Also, I don't think that the CeCILL license is very popular at Inria
> anymore, but I might be wrong.
I hope this is the case, since license proliferation is really bad
and has caused many headaches to many concerned people.
Thanks for any help you may provide in solving this long-standing
issue.
Bye.
--
http://www.inventati.org/frx/
There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory!
. Francesco Poli .
GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
pgpVCqfrEMdpN.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Bug#741196: libpetsc3.4.2: libpetsc.so.3.4.2 links with both GPL-licensed and GPL-incompatible libraries
On 09/03/14 at 22:26 +0100, Francesco Poli (wintermute) wrote: > Package: libpetsc3.4.2 > Version: 3.4.2.dfsg1-6 > Severity: serious > Justification: Policy 2.3 > User: debian-science-maintain...@lists.alioth.debian.org > Usertags: scotch-license-issues > > Hello, > the library /usr/lib/libpetsc.so.3.4.2 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 > > This seems to mean that package libpetsc3.4.2 includes a file which > links with both GPL-licensed and GPL-incompatible libraries. > > Please refer to the almost identical bug #740463 for some further > details about the SCOTCH licensing issues. > > I think the possible solutions to the issue for petsc 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 Hi Francesco, Have you tried the above? It seems that the main SCOTCH copyright holders is Francois Pellegrini, who is very active in the French Free Software community. One of the colleagues (same Inria research team) of Francois is Brice Goglin, who is a DD. So it might be useful to try to contact them. Also, I don't think that the CeCILL license is very popular at Inria anymore, but I might be wrong. Lucas
Bug#741196: libpetsc3.4.2: libpetsc.so.3.4.2 links with both GPL-licensed and GPL-incompatible libraries
On Sun, 14 Sep 2014 23:04:21 +0200 Sylvestre Ledru wrote: > On 14/09/2014 16:11, Francesco Poli wrote: > > On Mon, 1 Sep 2014 23:00:22 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote: > > > > [...] > >> I am more and more worried by the lack of answers from the > >> FTP Masters. > >> > >> > >> Bye. > > Hello again FTP Masters, > > just a friendly ping about this troublesome issue. > > > > Please please please express your opinion! > > > I am not part of the ftpmaster team but I think they have plenty of > works with the latest transitions for Jessie to worry > about license incompatibility. Your comment almost seems to suggest that license incompatibilities are to be considered as minor issues... You probably didn't mean it. I think that license incompatibilities are serious and urgent issues, since they may cause packages to be legally undistributable. I waited for some more time, in the hope to receive some reply, but nothing arrived, unfortunately. Dear Sylvestre, what do you suggest to do? Julien and Anton do not seem to believe that there actually is an issue, unless they see some official statement from the FTP Masters, but this statement seems to never arrive. In the meantime, the severity of the bug report has been downgraded below the RC threshold. I assume good faith on Julien's and Anton's side, but, nevertheless, this looks very similar to a clever tactic to obtain a "virtual" jessie-ignore tag without actually asking for it... -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ fsck is a four letter word... . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpqMMeRgoXxV.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#741196: libpetsc3.4.2: libpetsc.so.3.4.2 links with both GPL-licensed and GPL-incompatible libraries
On 14/09/2014 16:11, Francesco Poli wrote: > On Mon, 1 Sep 2014 23:00:22 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote: > > [...] >> I am more and more worried by the lack of answers from the >> FTP Masters. >> >> >> Bye. > Hello again FTP Masters, > just a friendly ping about this troublesome issue. > > Please please please express your opinion! > I am not part of the ftpmaster team but I think they have plenty of works with the latest transitions for Jessie to worry about license incompatibility. Cheers, Sylvestre -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#741196: libpetsc3.4.2: libpetsc.so.3.4.2 links with both GPL-licensed and GPL-incompatible libraries
On Mon, 1 Sep 2014 23:00:22 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote: [...] > I am more and more worried by the lack of answers from the > FTP Masters. > > The jessie freeze is quickly approaching and I am concerned that this > license incompatibility issue (bug #741196 and the other similar bug > reports against other packages) may slip through the release > unaddressed... > > Dear FTP Masters, > please read #741196 bug log, or, at least > > https://bugs.debian.org/741196#5 > https://bugs.debian.org/741196#53 > > and express your opinion. > > Thanks for your time. > Looking forward to hearing back from you. > > Bye. Hello again FTP Masters, just a friendly ping about this troublesome issue. Please please please express your opinion! Thanks for your time. Bye. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ fsck is a four letter word... . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpQk2jkRRvMP.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#741196: libpetsc3.4.2: libpetsc.so.3.4.2 links with both GPL-licensed and GPL-incompatible libraries
On Sun, 22 Jun 2014 11:46:27 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote: > On Sat, 21 Jun 2014 18:08:47 +0200 Anton Gladky wrote: [...] > > Please have some patience and wait for an answer from > > FTP-masters. > > So be it. > > But I believe I have already explained the situation, hence I hope > it's clear that, in this case, the "moreinfo" tag does *not* mean that > the bug report is waiting for further information from me. > We are instead waiting for a reply from the FTP Masters [...] I am more and more worried by the lack of answers from the FTP Masters. The jessie freeze is quickly approaching and I am concerned that this license incompatibility issue (bug #741196 and the other similar bug reports against other packages) may slip through the release unaddressed... Dear FTP Masters, please read #741196 bug log, or, at least https://bugs.debian.org/741196#5 https://bugs.debian.org/741196#53 and express your opinion. Thanks for your time. Looking forward to hearing back from you. Bye. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ fsck is a four letter word... . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpcAZKC7qEe7.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#741196: libpetsc3.4.2: libpetsc.so.3.4.2 links with both GPL-licensed and GPL-incompatible libraries
On Sat, 21 Jun 2014 18:08:47 +0200 Anton Gladky wrote: > severity 741196 important > tags 741196 +moreinfo > thanks > > 2014-06-21 16:34 GMT+02:00 Francesco Poli : > > In the absence of any reply from either the FTP Masters or Julien, I am > > raising the severity of this bug report back to "serious" and removing > > the "moreinfo" tag. > > I disagree with that. That is the prerogative of maintainer to > set the bug`s severity (package is team-maintained). > > Please have some patience and wait for an answer from > FTP-masters. So be it. But I believe I have already explained the situation, hence I hope it's clear that, in this case, the "moreinfo" tag does *not* mean that the bug report is waiting for further information from me. We are instead waiting for a reply from the FTP Masters and for a clarification from Julien... Bye. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ fsck is a four letter word... . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpbVperQ_xto.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#741196: libpetsc3.4.2: libpetsc.so.3.4.2 links with both GPL-licensed and GPL-incompatible libraries
severity 741196 important tags 741196 +moreinfo thanks 2014-06-21 16:34 GMT+02:00 Francesco Poli : > In the absence of any reply from either the FTP Masters or Julien, I am > raising the severity of this bug report back to "serious" and removing > the "moreinfo" tag. I disagree with that. That is the prerogative of maintainer to set the bug`s severity (package is team-maintained). Please have some patience and wait for an answer from FTP-masters. Anton -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#741196: libpetsc3.4.2: libpetsc.so.3.4.2 links with both GPL-licensed and GPL-incompatible libraries
Control: severity -1 serious Control: tags -1 - moreinfo On Wed, 21 May 2014 21:57:19 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote: [...] > Dear FTP Masters, > I've been asked by Julien Cristau (who reads this message in copy) to > get a confirmation in an "authoritative statement from ftpmaster" that > the CeCILL-C license is GPL-incompatible. > [...] > I asked him to clarify what he is disagreeing > about, but I haven't received any reply. > > Please read the full #741196 bug log, if you need more context. > > If you agree with me that CeCILL-C is GPL-incompatible, then I think > that the severity of bug #741196 should be raised again to "serious" > and its "moreinfo" tag should be removed. > > Could you please express your opinion? In the absence of any reply from either the FTP Masters or Julien, I am raising the severity of this bug report back to "serious" and removing the "moreinfo" tag. Bye. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ fsck is a four letter word... . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpJNfjZU5Oxk.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#741196: libpetsc3.4.2: libpetsc.so.3.4.2 links with both GPL-licensed and GPL-incompatible libraries
On Thu, 15 May 2014 00:46:35 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote: > On Wed, 14 May 2014 16:41:46 +0200 Julien Cristau wrote: > > > Control: severity -1 important > > Control: tags -1 moreinfo > > > > On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 00:41:10 +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > [...] > > > Regardless of what the license is *intended* to be, CeCILL-C in fact > > > includes restrictions not present in the GNU GPL and has no explicit > > > conversion-to-GPL clause, unlike the CeCILL license. > > > > > > As a consequence, CeCILL-C really appears to be GPL-incompatible, > > > unfortunately... > > > [...] > > > > > Since I disagree, I'd like you to get that confirmed in an authoritative > > statement from ftpmaster. In the meantime, I'll downgrade this bug. > > I am not sure I understand what you are disagreeing about. > > What I say is: > > (A) the CeCILL-C license includes some restrictions (at the very > least, a choice of venue clause) which are not present in the GNU GPL > v2 (or later) > > (B) the CeCILL-C license does not include any explicit > conversion-to-GPL (or to any other license) clause > > (C) a license which includes restrictions not present in the GNU GPL > is GPL-incompatible, unless it has an explicit > conversion-to-GPL-compatible-license clause > > Which point are you disagreeing on? > Please clarify. > > Thanks for your time. Dear FTP Masters, I've been asked by Julien Cristau (who reads this message in copy) to get a confirmation in an "authoritative statement from ftpmaster" that the CeCILL-C license is GPL-incompatible. As you can read above, I asked him to clarify what he is disagreeing about, but I haven't received any reply. Please read the full #741196 bug log, if you need more context. If you agree with me that CeCILL-C is GPL-incompatible, then I think that the severity of bug #741196 should be raised again to "serious" and its "moreinfo" tag should be removed. Could you please express your opinion? Thanks for your time! Bye. -- 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 pgpTwJllGDBGp.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#741196: libpetsc3.4.2: libpetsc.so.3.4.2 links with both GPL-licensed and GPL-incompatible libraries
On Wed, 14 May 2014 16:41:46 +0200 Julien Cristau wrote: > Control: severity -1 important > Control: tags -1 moreinfo > > On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 00:41:10 +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: [...] > > Regardless of what the license is *intended* to be, CeCILL-C in fact > > includes restrictions not present in the GNU GPL and has no explicit > > conversion-to-GPL clause, unlike the CeCILL license. > > > > As a consequence, CeCILL-C really appears to be GPL-incompatible, > > unfortunately... > > > > > > Anyway, thanks for following up on this bug report of mine. > > And thanks for any help you may provide to fix the issue! > > > Since I disagree, I'd like you to get that confirmed in an authoritative > statement from ftpmaster. In the meantime, I'll downgrade this bug. I am not sure I understand what you are disagreeing about. What I say is: (A) the CeCILL-C license includes some restrictions (at the very least, a choice of venue clause) which are not present in the GNU GPL v2 (or later) (B) the CeCILL-C license does not include any explicit conversion-to-GPL (or to any other license) clause (C) a license which includes restrictions not present in the GNU GPL is GPL-incompatible, unless it has an explicit conversion-to-GPL-compatible-license clause Which point are you disagreeing on? Please clarify. Thanks for your time. -- 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 pgp5YivCjt_N2.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#741196: libpetsc3.4.2: libpetsc.so.3.4.2 links with both GPL-licensed and GPL-incompatible libraries
Control: severity -1 important Control: tags -1 moreinfo On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 00:41:10 +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > On Tue, 13 May 2014 18:48:34 +0200 Julien Cristau wrote: > > > On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 18:34:35 +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > [...] > > > As already said in the original bug report, please see the almost > > > identical bug #740463 for some further details about the SCOTCH > > > licensing issues. > > > > > > I hope this clarifies. > > > > > From what I understand CeCILL-C is intended to be more permissive than > > plain CeCILL, which itself is explicitly GPL-compatible. So not really. > > Regardless of what the license is *intended* to be, CeCILL-C in fact > includes restrictions not present in the GNU GPL and has no explicit > conversion-to-GPL clause, unlike the CeCILL license. > > As a consequence, CeCILL-C really appears to be GPL-incompatible, > unfortunately... > > > Anyway, thanks for following up on this bug report of mine. > And thanks for any help you may provide to fix the issue! > Since I disagree, I'd like you to get that confirmed in an authoritative statement from ftpmaster. In the meantime, I'll downgrade this bug. Cheers, Julien -- Julien Cristau Logilab http://www.logilab.fr/ Informatique scientifique & gestion de connaissances -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#741196: libpetsc3.4.2: libpetsc.so.3.4.2 links with both GPL-licensed and GPL-incompatible libraries
On Tue, 13 May 2014 18:48:34 +0200 Julien Cristau wrote: > On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 18:34:35 +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: [...] > > As already said in the original bug report, please see the almost > > identical bug #740463 for some further details about the SCOTCH > > licensing issues. > > > > I hope this clarifies. > > > From what I understand CeCILL-C is intended to be more permissive than > plain CeCILL, which itself is explicitly GPL-compatible. So not really. Regardless of what the license is *intended* to be, CeCILL-C in fact includes restrictions not present in the GNU GPL and has no explicit conversion-to-GPL clause, unlike the CeCILL license. As a consequence, CeCILL-C really appears to be GPL-incompatible, unfortunately... Anyway, thanks for following up on this bug report of mine. And thanks for any help you may provide to fix the issue! Bye. -- 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 pgptfj10uFcI5.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#741196: libpetsc3.4.2: libpetsc.so.3.4.2 links with both GPL-licensed and GPL-incompatible libraries
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 18:34:35 +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > Control: tags -1 - moreinfo > > > On Tue, 13 May 2014 11:37:17 +0200 Julien Cristau wrote: > > [...] > > On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 22:26:06 +0100, Francesco Poli (wintermute) wrote: > > > > > => libptscotch-5.1.so and libptscotcherr-5.1.so, which are released > > > under the GPL-incompatible terms of the CeCILL-C v1.0 license > > > > > Do you have a reference for this claimed incompatibility? > > As already said in the original bug report, please see the almost > identical bug #740463 for some further details about the SCOTCH > licensing issues. > > I hope this clarifies. > >From what I understand CeCILL-C is intended to be more permissive than plain CeCILL, which itself is explicitly GPL-compatible. So not really. Cheers, Julien -- Julien Cristau Logilab http://www.logilab.fr/ Informatique scientifique & gestion de connaissances -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#741196: libpetsc3.4.2: libpetsc.so.3.4.2 links with both GPL-licensed and GPL-incompatible libraries
Control: tags -1 - moreinfo On Tue, 13 May 2014 11:37:17 +0200 Julien Cristau wrote: [...] > On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 22:26:06 +0100, Francesco Poli (wintermute) wrote: > > > => libptscotch-5.1.so and libptscotcherr-5.1.so, which are released > > under the GPL-incompatible terms of the CeCILL-C v1.0 license > > > Do you have a reference for this claimed incompatibility? As already said in the original bug report, please see the almost identical bug #740463 for some further details about the SCOTCH licensing issues. 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 pgpQbS1i5KQF5.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#741196: libpetsc3.4.2: libpetsc.so.3.4.2 links with both GPL-licensed and GPL-incompatible libraries
Control: tags -1 moreinfo On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 22:26:06 +0100, Francesco Poli (wintermute) wrote: > => libptscotch-5.1.so and libptscotcherr-5.1.so, which are released > under the GPL-incompatible terms of the CeCILL-C v1.0 license > Do you have a reference for this claimed incompatibility? Cheers, Julien -- Julien Cristau Logilab http://www.logilab.fr/ Informatique scientifique & gestion de connaissances -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#741196: libpetsc3.4.2: libpetsc.so.3.4.2 links with both GPL-licensed and GPL-incompatible libraries
Package: libpetsc3.4.2
Version: 3.4.2.dfsg1-6
Severity: serious
Justification: Policy 2.3
User: debian-science-maintain...@lists.alioth.debian.org
Usertags: scotch-license-issues
Hello,
the library /usr/lib/libpetsc.so.3.4.2 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
This seems to mean that package libpetsc3.4.2 includes a file which
links with both GPL-licensed and GPL-incompatible libraries.
Please refer to the almost identical bug #740463 for some further
details about the SCOTCH licensing issues.
I think the possible solutions to the issue for petsc 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 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 stated in other bug reports, the best solution is (A). Thus, I 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!
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
