On Thu, 2017-03-23 at 10:51 +0800, Drew Parsons wrote:
>
> If I'm reading that right, we can link it from BSD and LGPL
> libraries.
> Currently MUMPS is in Debian used by
>
> getfem++ LGPL
> petsc BSD-2
> which is used by dolfin LGPL
> trilinos BS
On Thu, 2017-03-23 at 11:04 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Drew Parsons writes ("Re: freeness and compatibility of CeCILL-C
> licence"):
> > If I'm reading that right, we can link it from BSD and LGPL
> > libraries.
> > Currently MUMPS is in Debian us
On Wed, 2017-03-22 at 13:07 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Drew Parsons writes ("freeness and compatibility of CeCILL-C
> licence"):
> > There are various discussions about the status of the CeCILL-C
> > licence
> > v1 (and other CeCILL licences) in the history o
There are various discussions about the status of the CeCILL-C licence
v1 (and other CeCILL licences) in the history of this mailing list.
It's not listed at https://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/
but when it last came up on this list, Thibaut Paumard suggested it's
fine, LGPL compatible,
On Sat, 2015-09-19 at 21:22 +1000, Riley Baird wrote:
> > But do we need to be pedantic about upstream pdf files?
> >
> > Our petsc distribution would be in principle be improved if we were
> > to
> > include the pdf manuals.
>
> Yeah, I completely understand. Especially seeing as we now have
>
On Sat, 2015-09-19 at 19:21 +0200, Graham Inggs wrote:
> Hi Drew
>
> On 19 September 2015 at 10:46, Drew Parsons <dpars...@debian.org>
> wrote:
> > As far as the win32 exe goes, maintenance would be simpler if we
> > didn't
> > have to generate a sepa
What is Debian policy on pdf documentation in upstream source?
dolfin needs an updated petsc to run optimally (multiple processors).
And dolfin is cool, so I'll update petsc (the latest version at
http://www.mcs.anl.gov/petsc is 3.6.1).
We've been using a dfsg version of petsc. The dfsg
David wrote:
Even worse is how question 8 of the FAQ contradicts section 2c of the
license since this has much graver consequences:
8. Does this license prevent me shipping any alternative technologies
in my OS distribution?
The DLJ does not restrict you from shipping any other
On Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 04:08:49PM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
Both `for non-commercial and non-military purposes' make it
non-free.
This looks okay for non-free.
You might want to talk to them about it, but perhaps this is
typical in your field (and the author has a hope of
9 matches
Mail list logo
